I have no doubt that on the long-term solutions will be found. Even if structural data
were IMHO presented and used poorly, the catalyzing effect of them and Wikidata will be
there. I am also in full support for the creation of a parallel Commons for NC files as
well, which will also speed up many processes. I am not interested in some ideological
stance about the matter, if we can keep NC files locally, we can also on a general
platforms, or we don't keep them at all.
The point is that such solutions will never really originate from a big part of the
community of Commons (including part of OTRS), they simply cannot stem from a community
structured the way some users actively shaped it over the years, encouraging a
self-referential "righteous" vision. Think about what occurred with Wikidata, I
saw users being trolled for discussing about its future role the beginning, but they were
mostly right, I don't see the Commons users who invented paranoid scenarios to justify
their behavior even thinking about that now.
I don't have time to protect the social roles of users who behave in such a poor way.
If I can solve things just going around them, I do so. It is a failure, but it's not
the fault of many among us. After I have to fix problems from actions that could have
simply being avoided with just a tiny amount of good sense, I don't have time to
discuss that there might be a better way of doing thing to users who will just ignore
that and go to the first occasion to reproduce the same behavior again, because they are
even rewarded for that. It takes me hours and I don't have any energy left, certainly
not even to rename a file, create a category or verify a license. I don't have even
energy to present it nicely to a third part who is witnessing that. I don't care how
certain users look, because they are the first ones who don't care about the
consequence of their actions.
Over the years, I am more convinced that the best solution is to let them go. It does not
matter if the backlog obviously increases. When we will be free to set up more functional
solutions, the backlog can be reduced quite easily. I have therefore stopped many years
ago to perform any actions outside my projects and I am happy that way. I am sure I am not
the only one. I am slways happy to create tool outside of such bubble, of course, but not
a lot inside it.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 20:14:49 CEST, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi,Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia that could
be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are pictures in Commons that are
deleted because there license is not compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is
taking place because the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place.
We are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to
Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable.
It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with wikidata and use it
for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that English Wikipedia material has to
be dealt with in the same way. Preferably in the same database. It then follows that all
the true freely licensed material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there
are the exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is part of
English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material to use in whatever
project, the license limits what you can use, what you find. For material that we want to
include that has an incompatible license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects
and we may choose if and how we expose it to the world.
Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects, the other stuff
relies on the license involved. An example, an original that is reduced in size to fit the
"fair use" criteria has a place but is not available. Obvious exceptions the
care takers of our material.
The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and bring options to
the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise stuff that has a place in
"fair use" situations. It opens up our content linguistically and it will
definitely make us more inclusively for a world beyond the two U-s.Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
"there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of
what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is
counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.
We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop
even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the
category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and
pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as
it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We
don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at
the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need
people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public
domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We
don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved
"not to be recent" against good faith. We don't need people starting
deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader.
However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years
a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even
believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral
duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They
can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the
huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me
that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the
mess.
A.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> ha
scritto:
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-host…
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best
Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta <trulytito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question
"why don't people
contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
alternative version of Commons).
2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this
"popularity"
problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks
User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <faewik(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
<roland.unger(a)soziologie.uni-halle.de> wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
-
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects
including the Foundation
itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is
broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
for
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wiki…
-
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question
why to
> publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
>
> -
> There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they
argue against their
sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They
have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things
stored in EXIF data or in
the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are
known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia
products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
>> Benjamin Ikuta
<benjaminikuta(a)gmail.com> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons
because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>