The discussion of Getty Images got me to thinking about the company, which I
frequently used to obtain images when I worked at my previous museum job.
Looking at their site, I found that they pride themselves on four advantages
that make all the difference between a media dump and a media collection. It
is worth considering how our own image bank meets these standards, which, as
they say, have emerged as industry standards over the past several years.
That is not to say we should adopt them all. On the other hand, this could open
the conversation as to what we might want to adopt. For instance, we may not
be able to provide an "instantaneous feed" of the most current entertainment
images, but could begin to develop a "photo assignment service" for
particular niches among our contributors. So, here they are, from Getty's own site:
Simplicity. We built a one-of-a-kind platform to help customers find and
manage the right images, and in a few short years it has become the industry
standard. We provide the most accessible and reliable way to search, download,
license and manage the broadest and deepest selection of relevant still images
and film clips.
How can we improve our own platform to simplify the process for people
wishing to use free images?
Expedience. To serve the demands of a fully digital publishing industry, we
provide instantaneous feed of news, sport and entertainment images as well as
painstaking archival research. We also offer a full-service photo assignment
service that can be tailored to your exact photographic needs.
How can we expedite any number of processes so that people get what they
want, and quickly?
Relevance. We are the first imagery company to employ creative researchers
to analyze demographics, sales data and behavioral trends to anticipate the
visual content needs of the world’s communicators.
Do we have the kinds of images that people really want to use/reuse? How is
that determined?
Experience. Our photographers are subject-matter specialists with years of
experience, not generalists -- a distinction that helps ensure that our images
capture defining moments and deep insights.
Do we obtain those kind of images, and how is that measured so as to help
the end users find what they are looking for. I have always been drawn to Robert
Capa's poignant image of a man shot in the Spanish Civil War
(_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Capa%2C_Death_of_a_Loyalist_Soldier.jpg_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Capa,_Death_of_a_Loyalist_Soldier.jpg) ). He captured a
defining moment--had he taken the picture a split second later, all he would
have gotten was a picture of a bloody corpse.
Are any of these applicable as enhancements to Commons? As I said earlier,
this is what distinguishes between a dump and a collection.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
The WikBack, a discussion website I started a week ago as an alternative
to wikien-l, already has over 100 members and a post volume greater than
that of wikien-l.
Since WMF-related topics are starting to come up, I have added a
separate forum for them. Please consider joining.
http://www.wikback.com
The site is noncommercial and advertising free. I am paying the hosting
fees and other expenses out of my own pocket.
Steve Dunlop/UninvitedCompany
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:05:07 +0100
> From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <41a006820801230405r3e39055ft589fa3e99b98d6c0(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hoi,
> I would turn it around, are the communities of the projects communicating
> with the WMF? I would argue that there is a gaggle of people all talking
> among each other making such a din that they are not heard over make so much
> noise that the WMF is not heard. I would also argue that it is for the
> people themselves to organise when and what they need, mindful of there
> being a foundation that will have to approve of what they come up with,
>
One. At least two board members were regular helpers and contributers to
Wikinews and to Wikipedia, and probably many other project. Both of
which do not participate in the community anymore, both who, as elected
board memberes, have basically ignored the needs and or requests of
those projects. Erik is the *founder* of Wikinews...but where is he?
Worried about Kaltura and Wikieducator and Encyclopedia of life.
> Wikipedia predates Wikinews. Wikipedia did news before Wiknews existed. Much
> of the relevance of Wikipedia is in their bringing background information to
> the news. If Wikinews cannot handle this, tough. If it means that Wikinews
> is a project that is a failure, tough. In the end it is a failure for the
> people who promoted the idea of Wikinews, however I think there is plenty of
> scope for Wikinews to hack it. But the Wikinewsies have to find their own
> way, their own niche. So please move on.
>
Again. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikinews is news. Wikipedia is not
the only WMF project and its them that needs to realize that, along with
the board/WMF, which they currently don't. It's not a matter of handling
it, its a matter of competition, which is NOT the goal of the WMF or
their projects. If anything, Wikinews should be granted a majority of
their news section...after all Wikipedia gets their own links throughout
WMF projects.
Wikinews is far from a failure. It IMHO is one of the most successful
Citizen Journalism site on the web. We have more OR Exclusive stories
than any CJ site and we also interviewed a head of state...something NO
other CJ site has come remotely close to doing. Not to mention the
handful of BIG stories WN broke. So to even incline that WN is a failure
is just 100% wrong.
Hard to move on, when the scope of WMF's *current* view is what's best
for only WP, WP, WP....I think it's time they move on, and remember they
have other projects.
> Again, it is YOU that has to make things work. At best the WMF provides you
> with a framework. It is you, the editor, the community that have to make
> things work. The WMF provides the hammer a nail, it is you that has to hit
> the nail on the head.
>
Then maybe the board and such should not get in the habit of making
policies or resolutions for projects, especially when that item does not
conform to the needs and goals of a project. Like the image resolution
for example. I think WN and other smaller projects have hit the nail on
the head, and have driven it into the wood...I just think those projects
are being neglected by their parents.
> In conclusion, I could not disagree with you more.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
Sometimes we have to agree to disagree.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:21:07 -0500
> From: Dan Rosenthal <swatjester(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID: <B78BCFC6-963E-4FF4-9B28-1524032D0C65(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
>
> And yet for every good story Wikinews has, it is buried under 100 crap
> stories, conspiracy theories about the WMF, self-deprecating leaks,
> etc.
>
> Clean up the rampant bias within many Wikinews stories, and maybe
> you'll get there.
>
Contributers write about what they want. If it follows policy and
guidelines then we have no say as to what is news. Just because you
consider a story trivial or "crap" doesn't mean they are. That's what we
call a POV...you can add that remark to the comments section though. If
you dislike a news story then you dislike it. That's your problem and no
one else's.
> For once I agree with GerardM. Wikipedia did breaking stories first.
> It did them best. And it still does.
>
And shouldn't. It's an encyclopedia, whether you choose to accept that
fact is your business.
> Wikinews may eventually grow into a truly outstanding organization,
> but it's not there yet.
Know of any "trivial" CJ agencies interviewing heads of states? Or the
WWW inventor? It's not there because the "news" section on WP forces the
people looking for *news* to an encyclopedia.
> While you say that Wikipedia contributors are
> only thinking about themselves, turn that around on Wikinewsies? You
> aren't the only news site out there. You certainly aren't the only WMF
> project out there, nor are you the biggest. Remember that you are a
> smaller cog in a much larger wheel.
Wikipedia is not the WMF's only project. The quicker that WMF/board
realize that, the better off everyone could be.
I never said once Wikinews was the only news site nor the only WMF
project. Not once.
> The WMF can't be as effective as
> it is if it does not focus on its strengths, which right now are the
> Wikipedias and Commons. Maybe soon Wikinews will be one of the
> strengths too, but it's just not quite there yet IMHO.
>
> -Dan
>
>
Each project = equal treatment. This is not a contest of the best WMF
project. Cannot sit here and call us the biggest database of free
*collaboartive* knowledge if we are competing. Want to compete, enter a
race.
Jason Safoutin (DragonFire1024)
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 12:30:08 +0000
> From: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Seeking clarification
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Message-ID:
> <f3fedb0d0801230430l47db917fq5b6398a63c60c5ad(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 23/01/2008, Jason Safoutin <jason.safoutin(a)wikinewsie.org> wrote:
>
>
>> It is realistic. Plain and simple: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you
>> want news on an encyclopedis, change it to "Wikipedia and news". Until
>> thin, this creates a competition between Wikinews and Wikipedia, *not*
>> collaboration.
>>
>
> We've had this discussion a hundred times before and still haven't
> reached a satisfactory conclusion :-)
>
> Decreeing "Wikipedia doesn't do news" hasn't, on the whole, *worked*,
> because it still gets news, at least "big-ticket" news. It still gets
> used, actively and enthusiastically, and very, very effectively. It's
> still where people run to for big unexpected stories, for air crashes
> and hurricanes and revolutions.
>
> We have three options - gently encourage people to move this over;
> take drastic measures to encourage people to move this over; or accept
> the status quo. And, somehow, we need to do this without lessening the
> overall utility.
>
Well I can say a few things Wikinews is famous for that WP could not
even dream of achieving: One we broke the story on Chris Benoit edit on
WP. 2) London Bombings 3) Israeli President Peres 4) Scientology website
being attacked....and that's just a short list because there are SOOOOO
many.
The thing it should be is that anyone who wants to write a *news*
article should be directed to WN. The news section of WP should contain
more WN stories other than just a link. And yes it has to be forced
over. Projects have to change. And WP needs to accept change. AS I
stated in a thread just before this reply, WP is not the only WMF project.
>
>> Right. The ones *not* in competition are the ones that are not the same
>> projects or similar to projects of WMF Wikieducator = Wikiverity and
>> Encyclopedia of Life = Wikispecies. Those IMHO are *direct* competition
>> and both of which receive an endorsement by WMF. Again, WMF needs to
>> endorse and think about their projects first and foremost. Period.
>>
>
> Perfectly serious question: *Why*?
>
> Let's imagine that EoL gets up and running properly, and makes
> Wikispecies look like a school project - it's got $50m, high-level
> backing, some Actual Professional Management, and all sorts of useful
> back-end stuff that we simply can't offer, not to mention a very good
> way of tapping into a highly skilled author pool and getting focused
> press attention if it so wants.
>
> I'm not saying this *is* going to be the case - EoL barely exists just
> now - but it's certainly got the potential to happen... why shouldn't
> we endorse it, in that case? Why shouldn't we encourage people to use
> it and contribute to it, why shouldn't we offer them assistance where
> we can?
>
> The WMF's goals are not "set up some websites and protect their
> interests aggressively". They are to get the content out there, to get
> more of it created, and the sites and the hosting are a means to that
> end.
>
> Assuming that because we have started a project we must see it through
> to the bitter end, we must keep clinging to it and pushing it even if
> something better comes along, is really not a very productive
> standpoint. It skirts close to a rather uncomfortable arrogance that
> we are the best possible people to handle any "central" collaborative
> project, and everyone else needs to find their own little niches
> around the territory we have staked out...
>
>
Because they need to endorse and provide for and help improve their own
projects first. We have Wikispecies...help them first...help the WMF
projects first and foremost.
Jason Safoutin (DagonFire1024)
In a message dated 1/23/2008 3:08:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
simon(a)cols.com.au writes:
Personally, I’m surprised someone from the WMF wouldn’t have just gone to
one (or a few) of the big computer companies and said, “46m. x 2
international eyeballs/month (and rising). Give us (say) $5M for the one
year’s sponsorship (in cash or contra)”. What’s that? 2 x 30 sec, spots on
one country’s superbowl? Sooner or later, if you think like a private
publisher, this, or something like this, is about the only way forward. If
you think like a public one, it’s a bit different. HYPERLINK
"http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Community_networks#lqt_thread_973"http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Community_networks#lqt_thread_973
Of course, that entails endorsement, which is, in itself, advertising, and
exclusive advertising at that. When I worked in the office, a major computer
company suggested just that, but it was turned down. One reason (and not the
only reason) was because it would have entailed putting "Powered by XXX" on
every page (there were also hardware issues, but I am not qualified to speak
about that).
And if it is decided to go with advertising, there are less obtrusive and
more financially beneficial ways to do it. And by financially beneficial, I mean
by several orders of magnitude.
And we are not beholden to a single company.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
No, I think it should be a little more considered than that.
Look at (say) IBM’s page. Like most large companies, it will have someone
from their PR teams looking at Wikipedia articles, if not initiating them.
Although I see the need to have these types of companies (and products)
peppered throughout Wikipedias to complete it, it seems strange to many of
my friends in the media that there would not be a way for the foundation
and/or its community to be rewarded, as every other publisher would insist
upon.
Advertising is dangerous amongst media which is ‘owned’ by contributors, as
we know. But (excuse my terminology) panhandling to contributors/users seems
a pretty hard road to plough, especially as they do most of the work. I’m
just mentioning one obvious response which my old friends in the media
business responded with when I asked for their ideas. They may only have
around 140 years experience between them, but it seemed a reasonable concept
for making projects sustainable as the Foundation begins to professionalize.
Personally, I’m surprised someone from the WMF wouldn’t have just gone to
one (or a few) of the big computer companies and said, “46m. x 2
international eyeballs/month (and rising). Give us (say) $5M for the one
year’s sponsorship (in cash or contra)”. What’s that? 2 x 30 sec, spots on
one country’s superbowl? Sooner or later, if you think like a private
publisher, this, or something like this, is about the only way forward. If
you think like a public one, it’s a bit different. HYPERLINK
"http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Community_networks#lqt_thread_973"http://wikieducator.org/Talk:Community_networks#lqt_thread_973
It’s funny from my friends’ perspective, cause the old joke is “content is
there to separate the ads”. WMF stuff is the antithesis of Fox-like content,
with the 8th(?)largest group of interactive sites in the world. Yet it seems
there is no understanding of what they are worth. Hopefully that will change
as Kul gets his feet under the desk. Regards, simon
> I can't see how it could become problematic. By creating a company or
> product template all it does is allow a company to say "we support the
WMF",
> while knowing full well that they can't lie due the beady eyes and open
edit
> policy around here. It allows them an easy way to take from the
advertising
> account rather than the feeble donation account. It also gives their
> PR/advertising teams a reason to take interactive stuff more seriously
than
> they do with the overrated and costly broadcast media.
I can't see many companies paying just to get a "we support the WMF"
notice on the article about them. What I thought you were suggesting
was removing the logos from all company articles unless they pay us -
that's a very different thing, and completely fails NPOV, which is one
of our most important policies.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.9/1238 - Release Date: 22/01/2008
8:12 PM
Hi folks,
I’m delighted to announce that Kul Takanao Wadhwa is the Wikimedia Foundation’s new Head of Business Development. Kul (pronounced “cool”) starts with us today, January 3.
Kul joins us from Stanford University, where he was new business and partnerships manager. He has more than a decade of management and business development experience, including senior roles at a variety of high-tech start-ups such as CyberTrust Japan, B.U.G., and Pangea2, where he worked on deals throughout Asia, Europe and the Americas. Kul has also done economic research at the nonprofit global policy think tank the RAND Corporation, and has worked in TV (NBC) and in the videogame and digital animation industry (Satelight, Japan).
Kul has an M.A. in international policy studies and a B.A. in political science, both from Stanford. He speaks Japanese, as well as some Portuguese and Spanish. He's been a volunteer with nonprofits aimed at helping at-risk youth and homeless people, and is a frequent user of the Wikimedia projects, particularly Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and
Wikiversity.
Kul’s job will be to develop and execute the Foundation's business development strategy. He'll identify and develop deals with for-profit companies, particularly where those deals help us make the projects' materials available to more people, in more ways, around the world. Business development at a nonprofit is all about putting together deals that bring in money while simultaneously advancing the mission: I am confident Kul can do that for us.
Vishal Patel, who has been handling business development for the Foundation since May, will remain with us until the St. Petersburg office closes on January 31. Please join me in thanking Vishal for everything he has done in the past six months, and in welcoming Kul to Wikimedia.
Thanks,
Sue
Sue Gardner
Executive Director,
Wikimedia Foundation
In a message dated 1/23/2008 11:08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gmaxwell(a)gmail.com writes:
What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
people?
Well, the first thing to do would be to count the number of monolinguals,
not necessarily the number of languages spoken. For instance, in the US, Canada,
Australia, there are a lot of tiny indigenous languages, but most of the
speakers communicate effectively in other languages, for better or for worse.
Danny
**************Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape.
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
