Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it is intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the other hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating files a day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it is intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the other hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating files a day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to do the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you project across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating files a day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other issue is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening uploads by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons community works in general to delete\undelete files would be counterproductive.
I agree with Yann that training would work. I think resources allocation and attention should be given to community who wish to train volunteers on how to contribute to Commons (beyond image uploads)
Regards,
Isaac
On Sun, May 12, 2019, 2:35 PM Vi to <vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
* Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense. * Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate and why they must do it. * The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. Period. * Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which is the original work is not a good practice. * Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work. * After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks - the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
- the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
how
to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less
problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> is > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> similar. > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> other > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a > > day: > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> components > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> >> Newsletter > >> > >> > >> >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> >> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> and > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> remarks > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> copyrighted > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care." > >> and > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > >> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > >> > >> Thrapostibongles > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons. I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of allowing content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe disappointment and surprise. It should be made very clear to anyone who uploads that this policy may be applied, and why it is necessary. It would also be useful to explain what to do if it is applied where it should not be applied, whether from lack of evidence or for any other reason, and how to avoid the problem. It might even be advisable to state this policy clearly in the upload wizard. When people have been reasonably warned, they are less likely to be offended. Cheers, Peter Southwood
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:10 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
- the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
how
to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less
problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> is > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> similar. > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> other > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a > > day: > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> components > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> >> Newsletter > >> > >> > >> >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> >> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> and > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> remarks > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> copyrighted > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care." > >> and > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > >> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > >> > >> Thrapostibongles > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In my view it has not that much to do with AGF. In general people at Commons do assume good faith, or at least they should. But when an user uploads a mix of own work with copyvios, or a GLAM shows a complete lack of understanding on copyright laws (by uploading modern art, for instance, claiming that they own the paintings, so the copyright is theirs), in those situations, use of the AGF principle is not possible, and the Precautionary Principle enters the scene. In those situations it is common that the baby gets thrown out with the bath water, which, IMO, is understandable and expectable. In any case, whatever gets wrongly deleted in those situations can be recovered afterwards.
Best, Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 08:03:
The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons. I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of allowing content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe disappointment and surprise. It should be made very clear to anyone who uploads that this policy may be applied, and why it is necessary. It would also be useful to explain what to do if it is applied where it should not be applied, whether from lack of evidence or for any other reason, and how to avoid the problem. It might even be advisable to state this policy clearly in the upload wizard. When people have been reasonably warned, they are less likely to be offended. Cheers, Peter Southwood
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:10 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
folks
- the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
the
AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
how
to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
can
take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less
problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of
> material it has to deal with. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
> do > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> GLAM-related > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> > is > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> project > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > similar. > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> > other > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> files a > > > day: > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
the
other
> issue > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> uploads > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > components > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education
> > >> Newsletter > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > >> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> > and > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > remarks > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > copyrighted > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
> care." > > >> and > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > >> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > >> > > >> Thrapostibongles > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> , > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 3:03 AM Peter Southwood < peter.southwood@telkomsa.net> wrote:
The precautionary principle is labelled as an official policy of Commons. I think it should be mentioned on the assume good faith page as it explains why it is sometimes impractical to assume good faith to the extent of allowing content to remain. If not mentioned, it can lead to severe disappointment and surprise. It should be made very clear to anyone who uploads that this policy may be applied, and why it is necessary. It would also be useful to explain what to do if it is applied where it should not be applied, whether from lack of evidence or for any other reason, and how to avoid the problem. It might even be advisable to state this policy clearly in the upload wizard. When people have been reasonably warned, they are less likely to be offended.
Exactly this.
Commons veterans are annoyed that uploaders don't understand all the principles and rules of Commons.
So to be helpful, I go into Commons:AGF to add the precautionary principle.
This way, people like Galder and students will know that: "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted"
My attempt to help is then reverted. Twice. Then I get threatened that I will be blocked if I try to help give better instructions.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fuzheado&diff=...
Tell me then, which is it going to be?
-Andrew
Oh the irony!
You assumed bad faith on my good faith edit to [[Commons:Assume good faith]].
What would you consider "dishonest" about the edits or the summaries? Telling folks that the [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle]] is part of the policy dynamic that even experienced Wikipedians may not know about (I certainly didn't) is most certainly useful.
That people are reverting the edits, in what seems to be an attempt to either hide the precautionary principle or obfuscate it seems quite odd. I'm assuming good faith here, so I'm not ascribing any motives to these reverts. You did not even give any reason for your revert, whereas I did in fact leave edit summaries.
For reference:
Edit 1 - "add precautionary principle" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
Reverted by Yann with no comment.
Edit 2 - "refine wording" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
Reverted by Colin with "Nothing to do with AFG [sic] and certainly not "refine wording" -- dishonest edit summary"
I changed "should be deleted" to "may be deleted" in case that was the wording someone had issue with. That's why the edit summary said "refine wording."
-Andrew
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:10 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
folks
- the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
the
AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
how
to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
can
take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less
problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of
> material it has to deal with. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
> do > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> GLAM-related > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> > is > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> project > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > similar. > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> > other > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> files a > > > day: > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
the
other
> issue > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> uploads > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > components > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education
> > >> Newsletter > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > >> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> > and > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > remarks > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > copyrighted > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
> care." > > >> and > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > >> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > >> > > >> Thrapostibongles > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> , > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the part of a Wikmedian of long experience. Your assumption of bad faith here is stupendous.
You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard to drive people away.
- d.
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many folks
- the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on the AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know
how
to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less
problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
> material it has to deal with. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
> do > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several > GLAM-related > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> > is > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
> project > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > similar. > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> > other > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> files a > > > day: > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
> issue > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> uploads > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > components > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> > >> Newsletter > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > >> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> > and > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > remarks > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > copyrighted > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
> care." > > >> and > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > >> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > >> > > >> Thrapostibongles > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> , > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I am not in anyway surprise at this nonsensical behavior of Yann.
This user once posted a misleading information about me and when asked to correct it they issued a block threat.
It's just terrible.
Isaac
On Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:46 PM David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the part of a Wikmedian of long experience. Your assumption of bad faith here is stupendous.
You can't simultaneously complain of the workload, then work this hard to drive people away.
- d.
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:59, Andrew Lih andrew.lih@gmail.com a écrit :
This episode exposes a policy of Commons that may be unknown to many
folks
- the precautionary principle.
It is an explicit exception to assuming good faith, so I noted this on
the
AGF page on Commons.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&am...
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 10:23 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most
of
the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
is
unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying
to
convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
know
how
to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying
which
is
the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this
can
take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less
problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on
behalf of
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
interested in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
for
access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
image
hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
useful
experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
ladsgroup@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
> images that might be copyright violation, or both. > > Best > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote: > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of > > material it has to deal with. > > > > Cheers > > Yaroslav > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta < benjaminikuta@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
or
capable
to > > do > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> > GLAM-related > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it > > > is > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> > project > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > > similar. > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
uploaders,
but
on
the > > > other > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> > files a > > > > day: > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have
to
cope
with > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
after
some
time - > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves...
and the
other
> > issue > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> > uploads > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > > components > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education > > > >> Newsletter > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > > >> > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
comeone
on
Commons > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects > > > and > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > > remarks > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > > copyrighted > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
that
doesn't
> > care." > > > >> and > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
cloud
storage
for > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > > >> > > > >> Thrapostibongles > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Amir (he/him) > _______________________________________________ faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -Andrew Lih Author of The Wikipedia Revolution US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, Columbia University, USC
Email: andrew@andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 05:10, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
This was reverted. It is a dishonest edit with a misleading summary
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:46, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yann, you SERIOUSLY need to back up this claim of "dishonesty" on the part of a Wikmedian of long experience. Your assumption of bad faith here is stupendous.
I too would like to see Yann's justfictation for this claim; and for his on-wiki post threatening Andrew with a block.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 16:23 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com napisał(a):
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
I think - what someone wanted to say - is that Commons is wiki with its own community, which desire some respect as any other wikimedia communities. In that sense - it is not cloud service which are usually maintained automatically. It is better to think about Commons - as a wiki - not as a cloud storage service.
* Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate and why they must do it.
That's true - therefore - when you organize any outreach or GLAM project it is good to teach the users how to communicate on wiki - as it is a quite strange system comparing to what typical internet user might be accustomed to, nowadays.
* The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
Yes. Exactly. If you think about default upload wizard - it is possible to upload other's works, but it is not that easy. Also - it is pretty hard to upload public domain works.
* Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
Well - this is disputable. I don't know global proportions - but for example for Polish part of community - there are actually 3 employees doing outreach and around 10 volunteers - and there are 3 really active Polish Common's admins and only one regularly active OTRS agent (me)... Out of these 3 really active Common's admins - 2 are actually also doing outreach. And in fact - probably the best thing would be to have in any outreach team at least one person having good knowledge about hostile Common's habits and how to effectively cope with them :-)
* After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Yeah. Because there is no any single page on Commons that might solve your problems. This is the other issue - Common's help pages are well.. far from being perfect.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less
problems.
I hope too. This is for sure really interesting project worth any support.
And there is nobody who "must" improve commons help pages as they are all volunteers, so if someone wants better help pages, they can have a go at fixing them. Do be careful about how you go about it, as it must reflect project consensus. Get agreement on the talk page first for any substantial change to minimise strife. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Tomasz Ganicz Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 5:14 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 16:23 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com napisał(a):
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the
Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
I think - what someone wanted to say - is that Commons is wiki with its own community, which desire some respect as any other wikimedia communities. In that sense - it is not cloud service which are usually maintained automatically. It is better to think about Commons - as a wiki - not as a cloud storage service.
* Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think
on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate and why they must do it.
That's true - therefore - when you organize any outreach or GLAM project it is good to teach the users how to communicate on wiki - as it is a quite strange system comparing to what typical internet user might be accustomed to, nowadays.
* The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
Yes. Exactly. If you think about default upload wizard - it is possible to upload other's works, but it is not that easy. Also - it is pretty hard to upload public domain works.
* Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
Well - this is disputable. I don't know global proportions - but for example for Polish part of community - there are actually 3 employees doing outreach and around 10 volunteers - and there are 3 really active Polish Common's admins and only one regularly active OTRS agent (me)... Out of these 3 really active Common's admins - 2 are actually also doing outreach. And in fact - probably the best thing would be to have in any outreach team at least one person having good knowledge about hostile Common's habits and how to effectively cope with them :-)
* After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able
to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Yeah. Because there is no any single page on Commons that might solve your problems. This is the other issue - Common's help pages are well.. far from being perfect.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less
problems.
I hope too. This is for sure really interesting project worth any support.
Hi,
Same as for reviewing files. I find more rewarding to work on content that creating and mainting help pages. I should mention that Aymatth2 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Aymatth2 has done an amazing work on completely reworking the copyright help pages, creating subpages by country. I think this helps a lot to find the information pertaining to a giving file.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 13:11, Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net a écrit :
And there is nobody who "must" improve commons help pages as they are all volunteers, so if someone wants better help pages, they can have a go at fixing them. Do be careful about how you go about it, as it must reflect project consensus. Get agreement on the talk page first for any substantial change to minimise strife. Cheers, Peter
But the problem here is not about having a good coverage on copyright issues! Is about deleting things claiming that are DW without specifying what is the original work this files are derived from!
This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. Period."
The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the author of the material.
Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS. Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after the material is made public.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which is the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have less problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I love this thread. Thank you to all participating in it...
Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an admin! SJ
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. Period."
The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the author of the material.
Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS. Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after the material is made public.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place is unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't know how to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> is > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> similar. > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but on
the
> other > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a > > day: > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> components > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> >> Newsletter > >> > >> > >> >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> >> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> and > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> remarks > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> copyrighted > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care." > >> and > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > >> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > >> > >> Thrapostibongles > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I really think that the main problem here is not automation but the problem Asaf pointed out: A small circle of people dictating the rules and who's allowed to participate and who isn't. Automation just perpetuates the cycle of those same people being in control of those processes.
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 17:08, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
I love this thread. Thank you to all participating in it...
Also: speeding these things with automation is also much easier once there is a quarantine where anyone can see flagged material without being an admin! SJ
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 7:39 AM John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com wrote:
This is wrong: "The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the author. Period."
The system as it is now will allow anyone to upload a file given (s)he has the necessary rights. That does not imply the uploader being the author of the material.
Note that verifying whether the uploaded material already exist out on the web must be done before the file is made public, otherwise any attempt on detecting a copyviolation will fail. That would imply that a copyvio algorithm must be automated. The questionable material could still be uploaded, but then a permission should be forwarded to OTRS. Also, a report from the copyvio algorithm should be stored with the uploaded material, as it is impossible to retrace the detection after the material is made public.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 4:23 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
As I am the author of the post, some remarks:
- Commons is, indeed, the only [cloud] storage for file in most of
the Wikipedias. Making an accusation of using Commons as a storage place
is
unfair and nonsense.
- Communication could be better, of course, but we don't have to
think on experienced editors and wikimedians, but on people we are trying to convince to upload to the Commons and find this burden. They don't
know
how to communicate and why they must do it.
- The upload system allow you to upload something if you are the
author. Period.
- Claiming that something is a derivative work without saying which
is the original work is not a good practice.
- Of course, commons volunteers are few, and they have a great
job-queue. But outreach volunteers are less, and a project like this can take a whole year of volunteer work.
- After all the victim-blaming seen on this discussion no one was
able to point to a page where the procedure was clear for everyone.
Let's hope we can follow with this project next year and we will have
less problems.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf
of Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 3:35 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of
> material it has to deal with. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
> do > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> GLAM-related > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> > is > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> project > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > similar. > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but on
the
> > other > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> files a > > > day: > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
the
other
> issue > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> uploads > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > components > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education
> > >> Newsletter > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > >> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> > and > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > remarks > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > copyrighted > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
> care." > > >> and > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > >> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > >> > > >> Thrapostibongles > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> , > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily has - and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills to deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images on commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come from cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an efficient way.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily has - and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills to deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> is > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> similar. > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> other > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a > > day: > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> components > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> >> Newsletter > >> > >> > >> >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> >> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> and > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> remarks > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> copyrighted > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care." > >> and > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > >> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > >> > >> Thrapostibongles > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins, they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
Paulo
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 21:13:
Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an efficient way.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
has -
and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills to deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
> Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of
> material it has to deal with. > > Cheers > Yaroslav > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
> do > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> GLAM-related > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it
> > is > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a
> > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's
> > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> project > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > similar. > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders,
but
on
the
> > other > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> files a > > > day: > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
the
other
> issue > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> uploads > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > >> Hello all, > > >> > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > components > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly
> > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education
> > >> Newsletter > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > >> > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project
> > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone
on
Commons
> > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects
> > and > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > remarks > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > copyrighted > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
> care." > > >> and > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > >> > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > >> > > >> Thrapostibongles > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> , > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons. I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed been found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations are.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins, they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
Paulo
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 21:13:
Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an efficient way.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
has -
and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills
to
deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
for
access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
image
hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
useful
experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
> images that might be copyright violation, or both. > > Best > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote: > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of > > material it has to deal with. > > > > Cheers > > Yaroslav > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta < benjaminikuta@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
or
capable
to > > do > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> > GLAM-related > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it > > > is > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> > project > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > > similar. > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
uploaders,
but
on
the > > > other > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> > files a > > > > day: > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have
to
cope
with > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
after
some
time - > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
the
other
> > issue > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> > uploads > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > > components > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education > > > >> Newsletter > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > > >> > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
comeone
on
Commons > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects > > > and > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > > remarks > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > > copyrighted > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
that
doesn't
> > care." > > > >> and > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
cloud
storage
for > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > > >> > > > >> Thrapostibongles > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Amir (he/him) > _______________________________________________ faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The expectations is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators#Community role
Regards,
Isaac
On Sun, May 12, 2019, 10:43 PM Todd Allen <toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons. I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed been found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations are.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia
sysops
are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins, they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
Paulo
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 21:13:
Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an efficient way.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
has -
and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary
skills
to
deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads
come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
for
> access to the Google image matching API access so we could run
a
> copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not
be
> terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment
to
see
> if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be > reduced.[1] > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily
housekeeping
> image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would
make
mass
> housekeeping very easy. > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
image
> hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
Commons
hat
> on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
> mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem
to
suck
> up all the oxygen and volunteer time available. > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so
long,
that
> several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
> term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
useful
> experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away. > > Links > 1. >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash > > Fae > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for > > images that might be copyright violation, or both. > > > > Best > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared
with
the
> amount of > > > material it has to deal with. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Yaroslav > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta < > benjaminikuta@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
or
capable > to > > > do > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> > > GLAM-related > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
> what it > > > > is > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then
you
can
> create a > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
> Common's > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> > > project > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to
do
something > > > > similar. > > > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
uploaders,
but
on
> the > > > > other > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> > > files a > > > > > day: > > > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins
have
to
cope
> with > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
after
some
> time - > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves...
and
the
other > > > issue > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> > > uploads > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > > >> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and
the
Commons
> > > > components > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
> highly > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions"
at
the
> Education > > > > >> Newsletter > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > > > >> > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
> project > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
comeone
on
> Commons > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
> projects > > > > and > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd > > > > remarks > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > > > copyrighted > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
that
doesn't > > > care." > > > > >> and > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
cloud
storage > for > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thrapostibongles > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > > >> mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Amir (he/him) > > _______________________________________________ > faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi Todd,
If you are active in Commons, and demonstrably understand copyright, ToO, DeMinimis, FOP, you are very welcome as a sysop there, AFAIK: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
There are some minimal requests of participation, which should not be an obstacle for anyone fairly active there.
Best, Paulo
Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 22:43:
I wouldn't even have any idea what I'd need to do to be a sysop on Commons. I frequently do find copyvio images and nominate them for deletion on Commons while working on the English Wikipedia spam queue (and yes, I'm familiar with copyright law, and they have all, to my knowledge, indeed been found to be copyvios and deleted), but I wouldn't even have the first clue to what being a Commons admin would entail or what the expectations are.
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia
sysops
are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins, they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
Paulo
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 21:13:
Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an efficient way.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
has -
and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary
skills
to
deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads
come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons
interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
> A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
for
> access to the Google image matching API access so we could run
a
> copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not
be
> terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment
to
see
> if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be > reduced.[1] > > Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily
housekeeping
> image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would
make
mass
> housekeeping very easy. > > A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
image
> hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
Commons
hat
> on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
> mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem
to
suck
> up all the oxygen and volunteer time available. > > Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so
long,
that
> several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were > originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
> term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
useful
> experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away. > > Links > 1. >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
> 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash > > Fae > > On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote: > > > > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for > > images that might be copyright violation, or both. > > > > Best > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared
with
the
> amount of > > > material it has to deal with. > > > > > > Cheers > > > Yaroslav > > > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta < > benjaminikuta@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
or
capable > to > > > do > > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> > > GLAM-related > > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
> what it > > > > is > > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then
you
can
> create a > > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
> Common's > > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> > > project > > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to
do
something > > > > similar. > > > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
uploaders,
but
on
> the > > > > other > > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> > > files a > > > > > day: > > > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins
have
to
cope
> with > > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
after
some
> time - > > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves...
and
the
other > > > issue > > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> > > uploads > > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > > >> > > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and
the
Commons
> > > > components > > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
> highly > > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions"
at
the
> Education > > > > >> Newsletter > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > > > >> > > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
> project > > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
comeone
on
> Commons > > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
> projects > > > > and > > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd > > > > remarks > > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > > > copyrighted > > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
that
doesn't > > > care." > > > > >> and > > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
cloud
storage > for > > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > > > >> > > > > >> Thrapostibongles > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > >> Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > > >> mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Amir (he/him) > > _______________________________________________ > faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Many are. I've always been in favour of a "do what you think you can do under your responsibility"-model.
Any steward can do any action, still they don't do what they are not familiar with. For example I seldom use central notice.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 22:28 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Anyone doing Commons stuff has to do have Commons skills. Wikipedia sysops are not asked to have them, and do not have them by default.
If Wikipedia sysops that deal with copyright want to be Commons admins, they can apply anytime for that role. Otherwise, render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
Paulo
Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 21:13:
Major projects surely deal with a significant amount of uploads in an efficient way.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 17:31 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
I absolutely disagree with this. A Wikipedia sysop do not necessarily
has -
and from my experience, most of the time hasn't - the necessary skills
to
deal with copyright.
Best, Paulo
A domingo, 12 de mai de 2019, 14:35, Vi to vituzzu.wiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I wonder wheter local sysops could be allowed to delete/undelete
images
on
commons in order to reduce workload. Most risky commons' uploads come
from
cw-upload, allow local sysops to handle them could work.
Vito
Il giorno dom 12 mag 2019 alle ore 15:31 James Heilman <
jmh649@gmail.com
ha scritto:
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested
in
having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay
for
access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to
see
if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make
mass
housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic
image
hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a
Commons
hat
on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use
than
mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to
suck
up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long,
that
several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive
short
term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the
useful
experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <
ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
> > IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores
support
for
> images that might be copyright violation, or both. > > Best > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter <
ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote: > > > Just the active community itself is too small, compared with
the
amount of > > material it has to deal with. > > > > Cheers > > Yaroslav > > > > On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta < benjaminikuta@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing
or
capable
to > > do > > > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <
polimerek@gmail.com>
wrote: > > > > > > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all
undeleted.
> > > > > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing
several
> > GLAM-related > > > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page
describing
what it > > > is > > > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you
can
create a > > > > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > > > > > See:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
> > > > > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes
with
Common's > > > > admins - creating template and project page helps to
promote
you
> > project > > > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> > > similar. > > > > > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for
uploaders,
but
on
the > > > other > > > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
> > files a > > > > day: > > > > > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > > > > > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > > > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have
to
cope
with > > > > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and
after
some
time - > > > > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and
the
other
> > issue > > > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
> > uploads > > > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > > > > > >> Hello all, > > > >> > > > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> > > components > > > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia
Commons: a
highly > > > >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at
the
Education > > > >> Newsletter > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > > >> > > > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an
Outreach
project > > > >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and
comeone
on
Commons > > > >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be
student
projects > > > and > > > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some
rather
odd
> > > remarks > > > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of
uploaded
> > > copyrighted > > > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco
that
doesn't
> > care." > > > >> and > > > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free
cloud
storage
for > > > >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > > >> > > > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > > >> > > > >> Thrapostibongles > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org ?subject=unsubscribe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Amir (he/him) > _______________________________________________ faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi James,
Of course. More admins would lesser the work charge, and it would be great. We specially appreciate admins with multi-language capabilities, as it is a multilangual project. Of course, comprehensive knowledge of copyright is needed. That is complex, but it can be learnt.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com a écrit :
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
<mumbles>Trying to explain European copyright to Americans can be quite hard… </mumbles>
;)
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:07 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Hi James,
Of course. More admins would lesser the work charge, and it would be great. We specially appreciate admins with multi-language capabilities, as it is a multilangual project. Of course, comprehensive knowledge of copyright is needed. That is complex, but it can be learnt.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com a écrit :
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
To have a clearer image of Commons admins, please see this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_administrators_by_recent_... There are currently 223 admins (comparing with the English Wikipedia 1,176). Among them 165 have done one admin action during the last month. But only around 30 admins have done most of the work. The content has grown exponentially, but the community has not. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Commons_Growth.svg https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/commons.wikimedia.org/contributing/active-e...
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com a écrit :
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here.
Hi,
My guest work is that 1. Adminship requires an extensive knowledge of copyright, that's the main factor limiting the number of candidates. 2. Commons requires candidates to be active locally. 3. I find personally much more rewarding to work on content that reviewing and cleaning files uploaded by others. I guess most people feel the same.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 11:39, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> a écrit :
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge it is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge it is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused on a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there.
Best, Paulo
James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 11:02:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused on a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there. rg/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That has not been my experience. I recently wanted to help reduce the load, in my volunteer capacity, by becoming a Commons admin focused on undeletion requests (which ties in with my volunteer work as an OTRS agent, and would save me and Admins the time of filing and handling a COM:UDR request). Despite my thousands of contributions to Commons, my track record in the movement, and my understanding of copyright, a small majority opposed. Some of them specifically said they don't want admins focused on a certain topic, and others wanted to see me active in deletion discussions (specifically) before they would consider accepting my help. This does suggest there is a certain reluctance to give the admin bit even to very low-risk volunteers like me.
I certainly did not feel my help was welcomed.
A.
You are right, Asaf. It seems that getting the sysop bit is much harder now than it used to be in the past, possibly due to many situations of inexperienced sysops causing havoc in Commons. OTOH, any destructive/untrustworthy account, such as "Daphne Lantier"/INC, can easily get the flag by being overactive in the usual tasks, and even get a motion by some of the most established sysops of Commons toward forgiveness and tolerance of plainly destructive behavior, for all the "good work" it also did there.
Paulo
Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 15:51:
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
As a Commoner, I can tell we certainly are, James, please apply here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators
Even if your sysop actions are rather occasional or seasonal, or focused
on
a certain topic, like mine, all help is very much welcomed there. rg/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto: wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
That has not been my experience. I recently wanted to help reduce the load, in my volunteer capacity, by becoming a Commons admin focused on undeletion requests (which ties in with my volunteer work as an OTRS agent, and would save me and Admins the time of filing and handling a COM:UDR request). Despite my thousands of contributions to Commons, my track record in the movement, and my understanding of copyright, a small majority opposed. Some of them specifically said they don't want admins focused on a certain topic, and others wanted to see me active in deletion discussions (specifically) before they would consider accepting my help. This does suggest there is a certain reluctance to give the admin bit even to very low-risk volunteers like me.
I certainly did not feel my help was welcomed.
A.
Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing need. Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, because as long as they force such people to work in a different way they will kinda oppose them. For example, many time I find a deleted file I could spot dozens of similar in the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He probably has fun cherry-picking one random file, with no consistent approach. So how many times for example I found files from the USA where there is no FOP for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but not by the American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should), enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem when all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random files, and vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the same pattern somewhere else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N users from the USA who have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who perform this type of deletion pattern will dislike any tools or preference who simply encourage to do it in a consistent way... they are expert and they know how categories work, if they don't complete the job is probably because they don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to get around some "the newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate matter", I guess the "good faith " clause will appear.
So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means poor overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural incoherence and in the end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain there). Take this dynamics, in other fields, with different nuances, multiplied by a dozens of different legal and workload scenarios and voilà. You have one of the reason of our current situation.
I guess there is no tool which can fix that, it's just the way a community really wants to be. Tools can help to encourage people to think differently of course, but I fear that would be a strong resistance.
A. M:
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 16:56:49 CEST, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com ha scritto:
Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing need. Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I read this:
On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you are too focused on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care for a functional working environment as well. You just expect someone else to build it for you.
And I want to talk about what we did in this situation, and why the environment triggers frustration.
First, when the professors came with the idea of creating multimedia contents for making richer Wikipedia articles, we focused on some issues: the content should be as neutral as possible, all the content should be original and the music used should be cc-by-(sa). We explained this idea twice in two different meetings, first with one professor, then with all the team that was going to guide the students.
Second, we stressed on this ideas with students during a four hours (four hours!) workshop. We gave them examples of bad content, we gave them examples of good content, we encouraged them to use only free sources and we explained how to work on Commons and why the content should be there.
Third, the professors spent three more weeks with them, helping develop the video, how to make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what to focus on), and how to find material that could be reused.
Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all the materials, we certified that all the music was free, we checked all the illustrations and we asked not to upload those that were of poor value or had any doubt about their copyright status.
Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to tag that the files were derivative works if applicable using Commons uploading system, how to fill everything if they were using video2commons and how to use the materials on wikipedia. It was my fourth morning with the students, and the third one dedicated to Commons. We also explained again what was the difference between free access and free license, because some of the students didn't get why we were not allowing them to upload some content.
Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors evaluating all the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about their quality and designing improvements for next year. Students then presented their works to a broader audience at the University.
Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that all the previous work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW. Period. And then I noticed that some stuff was missing when I started to write a report about the experience for the Outreach Newsletter. And as I have followed all the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach Dashboard where I can track everything this students created, uploaded or edited: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunik... . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated education programme portal: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza
It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work, what licenses are suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so, then I should explain that we have created two videotutorials, a leaflet and a small book explaining everything we were explaining direcdtly to them, so if they had any doubt they could read them. And we gave a copy to each student, so they could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct e-mail so they could ask for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we gave them some answers.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, because as long as they force such people to work in a different way they will kinda oppose them. For example, many time I find a deleted file I could spot dozens of similar in the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He probably has fun cherry-picking one random file, with no consistent approach. So how many times for example I found files from the USA where there is no FOP for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but not by the American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should), enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem when all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random files, and vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the same pattern somewhere else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N users from the USA who have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who perform this type of deletion pattern will dislike any tools or preference who simply encourage to do it in a consistent way... they are expert and they know how categories work, if they don't complete the job is probably because they don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to get around some "the newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate matter", I guess the "good faith " clause will appear.
So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means poor overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural incoherence and in the end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain there). Take this dynamics, in other fields, with different nuances, multiplied by a dozens of different legal and workload scenarios and voilà. You have one of the reason of our current situation.
I guess there is no tool which can fix that, it's just the way a community really wants to be. Tools can help to encourage people to think differently of course, but I fear that would be a strong resistance.
A. M:
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 16:56:49 CEST, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com ha scritto:
Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing need. Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks for this, Galder. It's clear you went the extra mile to make sure all these issues were addressed and in ways that exceed any education project I have seen before, and I've been involved with Wikimedia and education since 2003!
-Andrew
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:01 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
I read this:
On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you are too focused on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care for a functional working environment as well. You just expect someone else to build it for you.
And I want to talk about what we did in this situation, and why the environment triggers frustration.
First, when the professors came with the idea of creating multimedia contents for making richer Wikipedia articles, we focused on some issues: the content should be as neutral as possible, all the content should be original and the music used should be cc-by-(sa). We explained this idea twice in two different meetings, first with one professor, then with all the team that was going to guide the students.
Second, we stressed on this ideas with students during a four hours (four hours!) workshop. We gave them examples of bad content, we gave them examples of good content, we encouraged them to use only free sources and we explained how to work on Commons and why the content should be there.
Third, the professors spent three more weeks with them, helping develop the video, how to make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what to focus on), and how to find material that could be reused.
Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all the materials, we certified that all the music was free, we checked all the illustrations and we asked not to upload those that were of poor value or had any doubt about their copyright status.
Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to tag that the files were derivative works if applicable using Commons uploading system, how to fill everything if they were using video2commons and how to use the materials on wikipedia. It was my fourth morning with the students, and the third one dedicated to Commons. We also explained again what was the difference between free access and free license, because some of the students didn't get why we were not allowing them to upload some content.
Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors evaluating all the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about their quality and designing improvements for next year. Students then presented their works to a broader audience at the University.
Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that all the previous work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW. Period. And then I noticed that some stuff was missing when I started to write a report about the experience for the Outreach Newsletter. And as I have followed all the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach Dashboard where I can track everything this students created, uploaded or edited: https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunik... . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated education programme portal: https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza
It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work, what licenses are suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so, then I should explain that we have created two videotutorials, a leaflet and a small book explaining everything we were explaining direcdtly to them, so if they had any doubt they could read them. And we gave a copy to each student, so they could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct e-mail so they could ask for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we gave them some answers.
Cheers
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, because as long as they force such people to work in a different way they will kinda oppose them. For example, many time I find a deleted file I could spot dozens of similar in the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He probably has fun cherry-picking one random file, with no consistent approach. So how many times for example I found files from the USA where there is no FOP for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but not by the American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should), enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem when all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random files, and vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the same pattern somewhere else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N users from the USA who have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who perform this type of deletion pattern will dislike any tools or preference who simply encourage to do it in a consistent way... they are expert and they know how categories work, if they don't complete the job is probably because they don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to get around some "the newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate matter", I guess the "good faith " clause will appear.
So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means poor overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural incoherence and in the end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain there). Take this dynamics, in other fields, with different nuances, multiplied by a dozens of different legal and workload scenarios and voilà. You have one of the reason of our current situation.
I guess there is no tool which can fix that, it's just the way a community really wants to be. Tools can help to encourage people to think differently of course, but I fear that would be a strong resistance.
A. M:
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 16:56:49 CEST, Samuel Klein <meta.sj@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing need. Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it
is
now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had
bad
experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops
running
the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop.
No
idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming
Commons
and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright,
less
mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution
is,
it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing.
And
maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266 _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I was not referring to your case, but in general. Even if so, talking about your case, you simply did what we all do. Or what we all should do, and we just know that sometimes it's not enough.
Did you tell them that no matter what, somebody could have decided to delete them in any case? Because that's what happen, it's just part of life on Wiki. Sometimes I show them the pages with the situations similar to yours, and they coexist with sloppy activities full of copyviol nobody cares (which I sometimes share too)
When I am in charge of a workshop or class, I clearly point this out. No matter how wonderful the slides about sharing and good faith sound, these things occurred and occurs. Reality is not something I can change for them. When I am in charge almost nothing that is inserted or uploaded is deleted, as far as I remember once a student upload a funny gif before my class, but really almost nothing else... I encourage them to write down in the description what is useful to clarify the situation and I clearly tell them that they can fell lucky, but it might end bad. I show them all the controls I do because that's actually what they have to learn themselves. They same copyviol tools the sysop might use, for example. The same pattern patrollers will use to find their upload. There were nice or useful files I did not encourage to upload at a course because it wold have been complicated, and for me it's fine because there are so many different things to take care on wiki, that some useful files can wait until Commons improve its situation.
When I am not in charge however, and I try to explain these aspects, usually somebody who organized the event tell me that I should not bother students with it. They say, this will discourage them (actually, I never had discourages students) Sometimes I was told to hide these aspects when proposing a seminar o activity, which I usually refuse.i know it's not going to be easy and it's not going to be appreciated but it's a honest description. In the end, it's useful to learn in life, in general, that human communities are not linear. Especially when you share something valuable for free you might be mistreated, I see no point in deprive them of such life lesson. these dynamics are usually stronger in volunteer-based communities, because some people really want to behave that way, it's what they like to do in their free time, they are very motivated.
Also, so far I never had problems with professional as well. One of the best video for Wiki Science Competition was proposed for deletion, the user had to track all details about it. But the person who went through that was not upset, he was ready, because I told him so the week before. And as a good doctor, he was just aware of human nature, I guess.
So If you work on the platforms, you know this happens. And you know how you can usually go around it and when it is worth to face it or not, but this is not the matter of a procedure or a checklist, it's mostly being aware of the human nature. Of course, I wish platforms were different. I tried to do my part for them to be different, I simply know it won't be soon. And I think that WMF can do nothing about that. Alessandro
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 18:00:47 CEST, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com ha scritto:
#yiv1485519652 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}I read this:
On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you are too focused on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care for a functional working environment as well. You just expect someone else to build it for you. And I want to talk about what we did in this situation, and why the environment triggers frustration.
First, when the professors came with the idea of creating multimedia contents for making richer Wikipedia articles, we focused on some issues: the content should be as neutral as possible, all the content should be original and the music used should be cc-by-(sa). We explained this idea twice in two different meetings, first with one professor, then with all the team that was going to guide the students. Second, we stressed on this ideas with students during a four hours (four hours!) workshop. We gave them examples of bad content, we gave them examples of good content, we encouraged them to use only free sources and we explained how to work on Commons and why the content should be there. Third, the professors spent three more weeks with them, helping develop the video, how to make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what to focus on), and how to find material that could be reused. Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all the materials, we certified that all the music was free, we checked all the illustrations and we asked not to upload those that were of poor value or had any doubt about their copyright status. Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to tag that the files were derivative works if applicable using Commons uploading system, how to fill everything if they were using video2commons and how to use the materials on wikipedia. It was my fourth morning with the students, and the third one dedicated to Commons. We also explained again what was the difference between free access and free license, because some of the students didn't get why we were not allowing them to upload some content. Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors evaluating all the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about their quality and designing improvements for next year. Students then presented their works to a broader audience at the University. Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that all the previous work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW. Period. And then I noticed that some stuff was missing when I started to write a report about the experience for the Outreach Newsletter. And as I have followed all the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach Dashboard where I can track everything this students created, uploaded or edited:https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko_komunik... . This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated education programme portal:https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza
It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work, what licenses are suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so, then I should explain that we have created two videotutorials, a leaflet and a small book explaining everything we were explaining direcdtly to them, so if they had any doubt they could read them. And we gave a copy to each student, so they could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct e-mail so they could ask for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we gave them some answers. Cheers Galder From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach We have dozens of cross project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that if you encourage the social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who like to "play cops" are a key actor... when this is established there is no point in creating sophisticated or efficient tools, because as long as they force such people to work in a different way they will kinda oppose them. For example, many time I find a deleted file I could spot dozens of similar in the very same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it or ask the deletion, I could feel he had no real interested in completing the job. The fight for copyright is not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He probably has fun cherry-picking one random file, with no consistent approach. So how many times for example I found files from the USA where there is no FOP for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but not by the American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should), enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem when all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random files, and vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the same pattern somewhere else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N users from the USA who have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who perform this type of deletion pattern will dislike any tools or preference who simply encourage to do it in a consistent way... they are expert and they know how categories work, if they don't complete the job is probably because they don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to get around some "the newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate matter", I guess the "good faith " clause will appear.
So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means poor overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural incoherence and in the end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain there). Take this dynamics, in other fields, with different nuances, multiplied by a dozens of different legal and workload scenarios and voilà. You have one of the reason of our current situation.
I guess there is no tool which can fix that, it's just the way a community really wants to be. Tools can help to encourage people to think differently of course, but I fear that would be a strong resistance.
A. M:
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 16:56:49 CEST, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com ha scritto: Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing need. Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal with a fair bit of copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi all,
I think that Tomasz and Paulo have made two excellent points. Firstly, Wikimedia Commons is a project on its own with a community that deserves full respect and not just a storage of files that acts as a cloud service to Wikipedia. Secondly, there is evident stagnation and even decline in the on-wiki communities on the account of the expansion of the off-wiki activities.
The problem here that almost all have pointed out is the enormous increase of content compared to the fairly stagnant community growth. My impression is that this is being allowed by the affiliates themselves when reaching out to new partners and massively adding content with unchecked licencing without caring much about the size of the on-wiki community that has to deal with it. So, an ideal scenario would be to see affiliates not only delivering new content but also contributing to community growth. As things stand, the content growth at the current rates will make things impossible to maintain by human hand, thus inviting the development of highly sophisticated technology that needs to be integrated at a very high price.
In sum, the solution is either the development of new technology or instructing the affiliates to grow the community while engaging in collaborations that result in mass uploads.
Best, Kiril
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 12:00 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to be quite stagnant, if not declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and always will be a whole different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge it is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place a candidacy to sysop. No idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is, it probably passes by that.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Some years ago I did a quite simplified analysis of the number of active contributors, and normalized the number against the number of people wit internet connections for the respective language groups. The relative number was pretty similar for all languages from similar cultural groups. I suspect that for a given group, or project, there is a limit on the relative number of contributors and we can't get above it without changing the project somehow. Another indication that there is a "crowdsource constant" is the trend themselves on contributors at the individual projects, they have been stable (or near stable) for a very long time. (Yes they drop somewhat, I know that!)
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:09 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If I could share my vision, I am not part of the group of "expert flagged users"(I have some flags here and there, I was asked to get more but I have no rush) and I am not part of the group of "expert outreach users" (I make events but change them so often I do not play any specific role). Surprisingly, I never had any problem so far with Commons. Some unnecessary excess, but limited and mostly immediately showed to newbies as an example. Obviously, there is no way I sugar coat them, it's part of being a honest teacher to show these aspects and they are not cow to milk. I guess it works probably because my approach is far from those that I see here on both side.
The people who patrol (or have similar functions) show often limited interested in a functional working environment. Their approach is in my opinion one of the cause of the backlog, not a consequence. I could make you a long detailed list right now about that.
On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people who ask for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real expertise, often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated superficially when you try to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or why sending a ticket is appropriate for a certain image. If you are too focused on "your stuff", I wouldn't be surprised if you don't care for a functional working environment as well. You just expect someone else to build it for you.
That being said, that there are many small ways to improve the situation, not even complicated ones, and they can act as a catalysts on the long term but they don't come for free or because "WMF does stuff" or because there are patient users who build them step by step in the dark. They could, if you are lucky, but probably in this scenario they will also start from from your self-criticism.
if you can spot such attitude in these mails, there's hope. Otherwise, it's probably going to be the same for some time. BTW, glad to be proven wrong. have a nice wiki A.M.
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 14:27:01 CEST, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com ha scritto:
Some years ago I did a quite simplified analysis of the number of active contributors, and normalized the number against the number of people wit internet connections for the respective language groups. The relative number was pretty similar for all languages from similar cultural groups. I suspect that for a given group, or project, there is a limit on the relative number of contributors and we can't get above it without changing the project somehow. Another indication that there is a "crowdsource constant" is the trend themselves on contributors at the individual projects, they have been stable (or near stable) for a very long time. (Yes they drop somewhat, I know that!)
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 8:09 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com wrote:
A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed here. _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This looks like a project at risk of collapsing under its own weight. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 6:48 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hi,
To have a clearer image of Commons admins, please see this https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_administrators_by_recent_... There are currently 223 admins (comparing with the English Wikipedia 1,176). Among them 165 have done one admin action during the last month. But only around 30 admins have done most of the work. The content has grown exponentially, but the community has not. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Commons_Growth.svg https://stats.wikimedia.org/v2/#/commons.wikimedia.org/contributing/active-e...
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 19:01, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com a écrit :
It is hard to get the admin bit there aswell. Is Commons interested in having more admins?
James
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 5:41 AM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Fae,
I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright directive. Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their blog post https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-intern... I presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on their projects.
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Any image recognition system has the potential to be misused. What we imagined was flagging images for the later attention of volunteers to look at.
A simple image hash might just be the basis for identifying potential close matches to previously deleted files or derivatives of existing Commons hosted files. These benefits could be delivered without any reliance on external databases.
The Article 17 aspect is from my perspective a large tangent. The WMF opposing those systems does not stop us from using automation and databases to identify potential copyright issues for our own purposes.
Fae
On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 20:44, Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com wrote:
Fae,
I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright directive. Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their blog post https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-intern... I presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on their projects.
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog... 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course, but nothing is perfect.
Best, Paulo
Mister Thrapostibongles thrapostibongles@gmail.com escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 20:44:
Fae,
I think that what you are describing is essentially the sort of mechanism that would be mandated by Article 17 on the proposed new European copyright directive. Since the Foundation has explicitly opposed that, see their blog post
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2019/03/26/european-parliament-limits-intern... I presume that they will not permit the use of such an automated system on their projects.
Thrapostibongles
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 12:41 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com
wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have proposed use of local sensitive hashing algorithms for at least three different purposes in the past. All being turned down. Probably it is due to LSHs being difficult to understand, and not to forget it is a fairly bit of fighting over what is and whats not a "real" LSH. In the past there have been a proposal to remove the SHA-1 digest for the revision, which I guess shows how hard it is to argue about the necessity of hashes.
If we want to do LSH for media, then we should probably check which DCT gives best performance. In particular we should check out whether there are methods that gives smaller footprints and faster calculation and comparison. Media streams can also be fingerprinted by using clip points. Also, as DCT is closely related to Fourier transforms (it is a real component Fourier transform), it could also be interesting to checking out cepstrum based transforms.
Related to this is also face recognition, but then we must discuss various methods for generating eigenfaces. Not sure if this is the proper forum for that!
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:41 PM Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A couple of years ago a proposed project was for the WMF to pay for access to the Google image matching API access so we could run a copyvio bot on the live new uploads list. Such a bot would not be terribly hard to get working, and would be a great experiment to see if this aspect of the more boring side of sysop tools could be reduced.[1]
Not specifically advocating auto-deletion, but daily housekeeping image matches to highly likely copyrighted categories would make mass housekeeping very easy.
A separate old chestnut was my proposal to introduce systemic image hashes, which neatly show "close" image matches.[2] With a Commons hat on, such a project would be of far more immediate pragmatic use than mobile-related and structured data-related projects that seem to suck up all the oxygen and volunteer time available.
Note that the history of these project/funding ideas is so long, that several of the most experienced long term volunteers that were originally interested have since retired. Without some positive short term encouragement, not only do these ideas never reach the useful experiment stage, but the volunteers involved simply fade away.
Links
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/02#Goog...
- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash
Fae
On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________
faewik@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment, and me being me, what is different?
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hi,
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a écrit :
I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment, and me being me, what is different?
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support for images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage
for
images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a écrit :
I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment, and me being me, what is different?
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on
the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope
with
aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some
time -
decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
> Hello all, > > There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> Newsletter > > >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> > As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and
> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks
> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
> and > "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > > Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > > Thrapostibongles > _______________________________________________ > 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@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The issue is not in that way. If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem. If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are the author? OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data, etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a écrit :
Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a
écrit :
I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment, and me being me, what is different?
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
In this case none of the images and videos were published outside Commons. But there were claims that this were Derivative Works. We are again in the same point: we are asking for uploaders to fulfill something beyond the usual uploading duties. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:43 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
The issue is not in that way. If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem. If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are the author? OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data, etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a écrit :
Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a
écrit :
I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment, and me being me, what is different?
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
> mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
is > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> project template to mark all uploads with them. > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project
> across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
similar. > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
on
the
other > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a
> day: > > See the list from just one day: > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue
> is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads
> by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > >> Hello all, >> >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
components >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
>> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
>> Newsletter >> >> >>
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
>> >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
>> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
>> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
and >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
remarks >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care."
>> and >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
>> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". >> >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? >> >> Thrapostibongles >> _______________________________________________ >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > -- > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > _______________________________________________ > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To quote what you said
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
This is not about previous publishing, this is about the person publishing a photo.
Problems with previous publishing is not special in any way for professional photographers vs amateur photographers. If a photo is previously published it _may_ be an indication of a copyvio, but it can also clarify the matter as the previous published photo may carry a byline stating the name of the photographer. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 6:44 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is not in that way. If you published an image exclusively on Commons, then no problem. If you first publish an image outside Commons, how do we know that you are the author? OK, there may be some factors to prove that (consistency of EXIF data, etc.), but in the absence of EXIF data, we the issue remain.
Regards, Yann Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 10:00, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a écrit :
Again; what is different between me as a photographer taking pictures for a newspaper and me as a photograper taking pictures for Commons? Is it the name written om the lens? The shoes I'm wearing?
There are no difference, this is a fallacy.
John Erling Blad /jeblad
tir. 14. mai 2019, 05.50 skrev Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com:
Hi,
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons. I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le lun. 13 mai 2019 à 16:56, John Erling Blad jeblad@gmail.com a
écrit :
I can imagine a bot comparing photos found by Google (ie. comparing hashes) but not a system extracting some kind of unique feature that says an image is a copyright violation. So how do you imagine ORES being used for copyright violations? I can't see how a copyright violation would have any kind of feature that is exclusive? The argument is quite simple; I as a photographer for a newspaper could take the exact same pictures as I as an amateur photographer. (I have photographed a lot for various newspapers.) Using the same equipment, and me being me, what is different?
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:21 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
IMO commons need either a Clue Bot NG for new uploads or ores support
for
images that might be copyright violation, or both.
Best
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:10 PM Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com
wrote:
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the
amount of
material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > > Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or
capable
to
do > the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit? > > > > On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com
wrote:
> > > Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted. > > > > The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several GLAM-related > > mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing
what it
> is > > intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can
create a
> > project template to mark all uploads with them. > > > > See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships > > > > Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with
Common's
> > admins - creating template and project page helps to promote
you
project > > across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do
something
> similar. > > > > Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but
on
the
> other > > hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright
violating
files a > > day: > > > > See the list from just one day: > > > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
> > > > so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to
cope
with
> > aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after
some
time -
> > decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the
other
issue > > is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents. > > > > I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads -
screening
uploads > > by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking. > > > > > > niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < > > thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a): > > > >> Hello all, > >> > >> There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the
Commons
> components > >> of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a
highly
> >> hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the
Education
> >> Newsletter > >> > >> > >> >
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
> >> > >> As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach
project
> >> uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on
Commons
> >> deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student
projects
> and > >> so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather
odd
> remarks > >> were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded > copyrighted > >> content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that
doesn't
care." > >> and > >> "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud
storage
for
> >> images you intend to use on Wikipedia ". > >> > >> Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute? > >> > >> Thrapostibongles > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
, > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > -- > > Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz > > http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek > > http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ > > _______________________________________________ > > 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
-- Amir (he/him) _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by OTRS.
Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would gather support.
[snip quote of the entire thread to date]
Will *everyone* please stop doing that?
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was previously published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to Flickr before importing to Commons. This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation. Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
OTRS.
Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would gather support.
This is simply a consequence of the above. If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned, and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine, but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them away for free. In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.), which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a free license.
Regards, Yann PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the messenger.
I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of these already reasonable expectations.
If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation space. WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to Flickr before importing to Commons. This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation. Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
OTRS.
Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would gather support.
This is simply a consequence of the above. If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned, and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine, but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them away for free. In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.), which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a free license.
Regards, Yann PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the messenger.
--
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp) _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
Thanks ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of these already reasonable expectations.
If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation space. WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to Flickr before importing to Commons. This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation. Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed by
OTRS.
Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would gather support.
This is simply a consequence of the above. If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned, and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine, but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give them away for free. In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.), which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication under a free license.
Regards, Yann PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and I am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot the messenger.
--
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp) _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -
- recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and extraordinary - lack of on-wiki documentation of program - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the program and its documentation
It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from ~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training material development.
Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.
I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known. Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.
You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have regret.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
Thanks ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of these already reasonable expectations.
If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation space. WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to Flickr before importing to Commons. This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation. Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed
by
OTRS.
Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would gather support.
This is simply a consequence of the above. If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned, and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine, but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give
them
away for free. In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.), which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication
under a
free license.
Regards, Yann PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and
I
am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot
the
messenger.
--
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp) _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Thanks Lane for the clarification. I disagree on some points, but it is useful to read the points.
Galder ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:34 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
wiki norms which seem to have been transgressed -
- recognition that the program and submitted content was unusual and extraordinary - lack of on-wiki documentation of program - lack of links between submitted content and on-wiki documentation - lack of small pilot before collecting the attention of many new Wikimedia contributors doing something unusual - failure to tag participants in the program as being connected to the program and its documentation
It is not the fault of your program and organization that you did not do these things. The documentation for all this should have been in place from ~2013, because this situation happens repeatedly. Unfortunately we as a movement are losing tremendous value in institutional engagement and donations for lack of documentation. I would guess that in the United States we identify hot leads for about 10 organizations to pay their staff to do wiki programs which have a salary cost of US$50,000 in addition to the value of their media contributions. Globally the amount of content lost for lack of documentation could be 1 million / year, when conceivably we could stop a lot of this loss with a one-time investment in training material development.
Programs have to follow rules. The rules are not published but lots of people know them. It seems like as a movement we prefer the damage of opportunity costs in favor of risky or more expensive administrative development. I feel like if somehow you had connected to a guide for what to do, then with preparation none of these problems would have happened.
I do not blame the moderators. If these moderators had not reached this decision, then almost any other moderator would have reached the same decision. The moderators are well trained and precise in the sense that they tend to uniformly make the same evaluations in situations. Besides the reviewers that you saw issue judgement, at least 5 times as many people reviewed the case and declined to comment or make their presence known. Those quiet people agreed with the discussion.
You and everyone else deserve clear documentation and guidance. For our inability to create this and deliver it to you, I apologize and have regret.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:13 AM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder158@hotmail.com> wrote:
Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail?
Thanks ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Lane Rasberry lane@bluerasberry.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:01 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
I see the problem as lack of access to basic training information.
It appears that the team doing the uploads failed to comply to wiki publishing norms. I do not see this as a problem between editors and moderators, but rather as being between who editors versus our rules.
Wikimedia projects already have an low quality standard. The two most common complaints that Wikipedia gets are #2 Wikipedia publishes low quality content and #1 Wikipedia's quality standards are too high. I see this issue as a complaint for us to lower quality.
The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of these already reasonable expectations.
If anyone wants to meet professional Wikimedia colleagues for institutional partnerships then here is a Wikimedia community organization which supports Wikimedians in Residence with a monthly online meetup and some conversation space. WREN - Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_in_Residence_Exchange_Network
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:46 AM Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to Flickr before importing to Commons. This is the primary evidence when images are deleted as copyright violation. Others may be watermarks, copyright mentions in EXIF data, etc.
I think professional photographers should have their account confirmed
by
OTRS.
Feel free to raise an RfC to make that policy if you think it would gather support.
This is simply a consequence of the above. If images of professional quality are imported to Commons after being published elsewhere, their copyright status will be questioned, and rightly so. Now if these images are only published on Commons, fine, but the objective of a professional is to sell his images, not to give
them
away for free. In addition, many professionals use stock image agencies (Getty, etc.), which often requires exclusivity, and therefore prevent publication
under a
free license.
Regards, Yann PS: I am probably one of the most inclusive admins on Commons (or less strict regarding copyright issues), so if you think yelling at me would solve the issue, you are mistaken. I really want Commons to improve, and
I
am open to critics, that's why I come here to discuss, but do not shoot
the
messenger.
--
Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp) _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane@bluerasberry.com _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:46 Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com ha scritto:
Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk a écrit :
On Tue, 14 May 2019 at 04:50, Yann Forget yannfo@gmail.com wrote:
Currently, we require a confirmation via OTRS if an image was
previously
published elsewhere before being uploaded to Commons.
Really? can you provide a link to a policy age proving that assertion?
Your claim rather makes a mockery of the suggestion that people should publish to, for example, Flickr before importing to commons
Unless the external publication is done with a free license, of course. AFAIK, there is no "official" suggestion that people should publish to Flickr before importing to Commons.
For EU citizens upload at Flickr could actually reduce our GDPR-responsibility as platform.
Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 16:03 Lane Rasberry < lane@bluerasberry.com> ha scritto:
The answer is not to lower the quality of our content, but rather to communicate more effectively the standard of quality that we require. With our standards already being so low, requiring things like proof of legal compliance, minimal verifiability, and having brief civil conversations in case of difficulty, it is challenging for me to imagine us reducing any of these already reasonable expectations.
+10
Il giorno lun 13 mag 2019 alle ore 21:42 Isaac Olatunde < reachout2isaac@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Not all local sysops have a strong knowledge of image licensing and I think allowing local sysops not familiar with image licensing and how Commons community works in general to delete\undelete files would be counterproductive.
I still think they can just left performing actions at their own responsibility.
Il giorno mar 14 mag 2019 alle ore 15:25 Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Nah, of course they do. We are using filters at the Portuguese Wikipedia since 2009, and I can say, without blinking, that if it was not for filters, IPs would have ceased to be allowed to edit at all there for good now, so much it is the amount of IP vandalism that they automatically catch and block... per hour. With some false positives in the middle, of course, but nothing is perfect.
I agree, but most of abusefilter effectiveness lies in 'block' option, which is not so common among wikis.
Vito
Yes, Yaroslav is right. The active community is small compared to the amount of work to be done.
I have advocated since long that massive training is needed to fix this. These trainings should be sponsored by the WMF and its affiliates.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 16:40, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit :
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Fair comments. It would be a useful allocation of the donors' money Cheers, P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Yann Forget Sent: 12 May 2019 13:29 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Yes, Yaroslav is right. The active community is small compared to the amount of work to be done.
I have advocated since long that massive training is needed to fix this. These trainings should be sponsored by the WMF and its affiliates.
Regards, Yann Forget Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)
Le dim. 12 mai 2019 à 16:40, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com a écrit :
Just the active community itself is too small, compared with the amount of material it has to deal with.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Is the shortage of admins due to a lack of people willing or capable to
do
the job, or increasing difficulty in obtaining the bit?
On May 12, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polimerek@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Actually, at the moment it looks they are all undeleted.
The good habit - which I was keeping when organizing several
GLAM-related
mass uploads - was to create on Commons project page describing what it
is
intended to be uploaded, preferably in English. Then you can create a project template to mark all uploads with them.
See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Partnerships
Despite practical issue of avoiding unnecessary clashes with Common's admins - creating template and project page helps to promote you
project
across Wikimedia communities and may inspire others to do something
similar.
Commons is indeed quite hostile environment for uploaders, but on the
other
hand it is constantly flooded by hundreds of copyright violating
files a
day:
See the list from just one day:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/2019/05/01
so this hostility works both ways - Common's admins have to cope with aggressive hostile copyright violators every day, and after some time - decide to leave or became being hostile themselves... and the other
issue
is decreasing number of active admins and OTRS agents.
I think - sooner or later - all this system - uploads - screening
uploads
by admins, and OTRS agreements - needs deep rethinking.
niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 10:48 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> napisał(a):
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd
remarks
were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't
care."
and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/ _______________________________________________ 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@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all the own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow when uploading to Commons. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This is true. I verified and restored almost all the files. There was one or two problems with students who uploaded an occasional derivative work (integrated in their own work), but almost all the files were OK, and correctly uploaded. The main problem here, IMO, was marking sourced stuff as "no source" without any explanation, marking stiff as derivative work without explaining or stating what the original work was, and then deleting it uncritically. I understand there is a tremendous backlog in Commons, and the community is tiny and most of the sysops (on which I include myself) are generally more interested in other activities than the regular management of the project, but IMO this sort of behavior should not be seen as acceptable. IMO it would be preferable to not delete or mark anything at all, and let the backlog grow freely, than to do it this way. On the other hand, in general the sysops with this kind of behavior are the most productive in the whole management of the project, and I feel I've no right to criticize when I have no plans to regularly help in what they are doing with such dedication.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 20:18:
Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all the own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow when uploading to Commons. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Paulo,
Thanks for restoring those images. If images are routinely deleted this way, I'm afraid it would be difficult to retain new editors. Affiliates invest a lot of time and resources to recruit new volunteers through various programs/project and if their uploads are blindly deleted this way, then it's a problem that needs urgent attention.
I honestly can't think of the best approach at the moment but something needs to be done.
Regards,
Isaac
On Sun, May 12, 2019, 8:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta <paulosperneta@gmail.com wrote:
This is true. I verified and restored almost all the files. There was one or two problems with students who uploaded an occasional derivative work (integrated in their own work), but almost all the files were OK, and correctly uploaded. The main problem here, IMO, was marking sourced stuff as "no source" without any explanation, marking stiff as derivative work without explaining or stating what the original work was, and then deleting it uncritically. I understand there is a tremendous backlog in Commons, and the community is tiny and most of the sysops (on which I include myself) are generally more interested in other activities than the regular management of the project, but IMO this sort of behavior should not be seen as acceptable. IMO it would be preferable to not delete or mark anything at all, and let the backlog grow freely, than to do it this way. On the other hand, in general the sysops with this kind of behavior are the most productive in the whole management of the project, and I feel I've no right to criticize when I have no plans to regularly help in what they are doing with such dedication.
Best, Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga galder158@hotmail.com escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 20:18:
Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all the own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow when uploading to Commons. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons
components
of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects
and
so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded
copyrighted
content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
It seems that either the instructions were insufficient or not followed properly. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 8:36 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Well.. there where instructions. All the videos were supervised before uploading, all the songs were perfectly cited at the descriptions and all the own work was marked as own work. This are the instructiones to follow when uploading to Commons. ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 7:59 PM To: 'Wikimedia Mailing List' Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Please read my post again, Cheers P
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:29 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
In which sense weren't those instructions followed correctly? _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
A large part of the problem is the disconnection between online and offline communities or types of users. It is quite counterproductive having affiliates, outreach programs, whatever, reaching out to people out to the Wikimediaverse inviting them to use our projects without having any plans or means to have someone from the onwiki communities directly following and monitoring those activities.
As Tomasz wrote: "*And in fact - probably the best thing would be to have in any outreach team at least one person having good knowledge about hostile Common's habits and how to effectively cope with them :-)*"
This is very true, and IMO very much inescapable.
Best, Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 18:59:
It seems to be a situation where there were no clear instructions, so people did what they thought was a good idea, but others thought it was a bad idea. No communications, now the blame is being spread without analysing the problem and proposing a solution. Not an unusual situation really. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Mister Thrapostibongles Sent: 11 May 2019 08:53 To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach
Hello all,
There seems to be a dispute between the Outreach and the Commons components of The Community, judging by the article "Wikimedia Commons: a highly hostile place for multimedia students contributions" at the Education Newsletter
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/News/April_2019/Wikimedia_Comm...
As far as I can understand it, some students on an Outreach project uploaded some rather well-made video material, and comeone on Commons deleted them because they appeared to well-made to be student projects and so concluded they were copyright violations. But some rather odd remarks were made "Commons has to fight the endless stream of uploaded copyrighted content on behalf of a headquarters in San Francisco that doesn't care." and "you have regarded Commons as little more than free cloud storage for images you intend to use on Wikipedia ".
Perhaps the Foundation needs to resolve this dispute?
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org