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(a)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#Goo… 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae/Imagehash Fae On Sun, 12 May 2019 at 12:21, Amir Sarabadani <ladsgroup(a)gmail.com> wrote: faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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(a)gmail.com> ha scritto:

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 &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Vi to &lt;vituzzu.wiki(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto: _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;andrew.lih(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :

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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; escreveu no dia segunda, 13/05/2019 à(s) 08:03:

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&a… Reverted by Yann with no comment. Edit 2 - "refine wording" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Assume_good_faith&a… 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 &lt;yannfo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- -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(a)andrewlih.com WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE

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 &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com wrote:

niedz., 12 maj 2019 o 16:23 Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga &lt;galder158(a)hotmail.com&gt; napisał(a): 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 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 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 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 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 I hope too. This is for sure really interesting project worth any support. -- Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/

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 &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; a écrit :

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 &lt;galder158(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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(a)gmail.com&gt; ha scritto:

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;toddmallen(a)gmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 22:43:

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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :

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-… 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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :

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(a)hotmail.com&gt; a écrit :

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(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian

On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 1:10 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulosperneta(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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 &lt;asaf.bartov(a)gmail.com&gt;

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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266

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_komuni… . 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 &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;galder158(a)hotmail.com&gt; 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… . 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 &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l &lt;wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 &lt;meta.sj(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>  _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;galder158(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote:

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-… 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 &lt;jmh649(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit : _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;thrapostibongles(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

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 &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :

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 &lt;jeblad(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :

To quote what you said 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 &lt;yannfo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Le mar. 14 mai 2019 à 15:32, Andy Mabbett &lt;andy(a)pigsonthewing.org.uk&gt; a écrit : 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. 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. -- Jai Jagat 2020 Grand March Coordinator https://www.jaijagat2020.org/ +91-74 34 93 33 58 (also WhatsApp)

Sorry Lane... which " wiki publishing norm" did we fail? Thanks ________________________________ From: Wikimedia-l &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt; 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 &lt;yannfo(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)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(a)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 &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Lane Rasberry &lt;lane(a)bluerasberry.com&gt; 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(a)hotmail.com&gt; wrote: -- Lane Rasberry user:bluerasberry on Wikipedia 206.801.0814 lane(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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 &lt;ymbalt(a)gmail.com&gt; a écrit :

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 &lt;galder158(a)hotmail.com&gt; escreveu no dia domingo, 12/05/2019 à(s) 20:18:

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 &lt;wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; on behalf of Peter Southwood &lt;peter.southwood(a)telkomsa.net&gt; 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(a)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_Com… 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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>