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>