Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM
Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to see some evidence for this. Thanks
User:Rodhullandemu
--- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Reply-To: Alessandro Marchetti alexmar983@yahoo.it, Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 25/02/2020 16:45:02 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects ________________________________________________________________________________
Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 think this is what is being referenced: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikid...
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:09, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to see some evidence for this. Thanks
User:Rodhullandemu
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Reply-To: Alessandro Marchetti alexmar983@yahoo.it, Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 25/02/2020 16:45:02 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on otherprojects
Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is what is being referenced: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikid...
Thank you; it is.
The issue is not with Commons, but with Commons' OTRS.
tl;dr = wanted photographs of individuals with items on Wikidata (established 2012) , that meet Wikidata's notability criteria, are being rejected, unseen by the Commons or Wikidata communities, by OTRS volunteers, based on a 2010 policy that is on a password-protected wiki. Requests for details how how that policy was arrived at, and how it can be changed, remain unanswered.
Hoi, For me there is no difference. When Commons OTRS is not behaving as is to be expected, they provide a serious disservice to our movement and yes, it may be volunteering but that is not a reason to accept what is not acceptable.
What will be done to remedy this predicament? Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 20:31, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:10, Rebecca O'Neill rebeccanineil@gmail.com wrote:
I think this is what is being referenced:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikid...
Thank you; it is.
The issue is not with Commons, but with Commons' OTRS.
tl;dr = wanted photographs of individuals with items on Wikidata (established 2012) , that meet Wikidata's notability criteria, are being rejected, unseen by the Commons or Wikidata communities, by OTRS volunteers, based on a 2010 policy that is on a password-protected wiki. Requests for details how how that policy was arrived at, and how it can be changed, remain unanswered.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%2... This is the chat at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikid... Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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'm not that familiar with the photosubmissions OTRS queue, and I've no idea if we have that rule internally on OTRS. But it surely seems a weird rule. Anything that is on scope to Commons - which is the case for anything used in Wikdiata too - should be accepted in photosubmission, period. That claimed attachment to Wikipedia, a project very well known for often having a communities with draconian and unhelpful rules of notability, doesn't seem productive in the least. If that rule exists at all, it should be dropped and the images accepted.
"some people have turned Wikidata into a dumping ground for scientific papers and a phone book for scientists" - O RLY?
Best, Paulo
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com escreveu no dia terça, 25/02/2020 à(s) 17:21:
Hoi, This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%2... This is the chat at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikid... Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think
that
whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 see. If I am reading it right I think that in that case I would never tried a direct OTRS , mostly because I know how the system is designed and its possible rigid reaction. IMHO it's not designed to minimize these points of stress but to encourage them. It looks more like a play when some people are confortable with a certain role. I am not interested in that play, so I try to skip it as much as possible. I have noticed for example people like these discussions about notability on Wikidata, but not the solution. In practice I see millions of items with acceptable IDs which will be completed by images and these discussions are already old. Just to be clear... I hate poorly created items, since I mostly teach who to manually improve them and even I don't care so much, so why people from other projects should bother inventing apocalyptic scenarios just makes me smile. They will stop when they will find something else to complain. Still, I don't know you but to me It looks more of a social thing than a fucntional one. There is really nothing more to discuss if you look into that, we need bibliometric items for precise application within the scope of Wikidata, and they require images. I am not going to write the more time-consuming steps I would have used to prepare or encourage or process that import, I simply would have assumed that the most direct way for that situation was just pointless to try. There is always some issues with one file in a batch or the phrasing of a sentence, there is always a confusion between notability guidelines... there is always a person who would precisely do what will escalate the situation. So, if the chance are more than 50% to go bad... why bother?
I prefer to find ways to make the longer road more time efficient and meaningful. Of course if you don't go that way you are not presenting things in a nice clear single passage so you cannot often take the spotlight... but I am not committed to that aspect, so It's not an issue for me. I still meet a lot of very interesting people on the way. Still, you have my support to remove that rigidi interpretation of notability on OTRS. If I can help to more people sapre time, I totally support it.
Alessadro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 18:21:18 CET, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi,This is the chat (too long) at Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Images_for_Wikidata_-_%2... is the chat at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#OTRS_&_Wikid... GerardM On Tue, 25 Feb 2020 at 17:45, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
Can you provide some links? I keep asking images for Wikidata items since years and I do not recall any issue at all. I have the feeling that as long everything is formally correct (all categories prepared and linked via wikidata infobox) nobody digs into that very much. It's true however that I have a cynical approach. In general, I think that whoever spends his/her time on this and not on deleting unused low resolution old images or cropping files or improving categorization is probably more focused on chasing users than actually cleaning up. As soon as you assume that this is the core source of the behavior, you can teach newbies quite well how to avoid it. It's not "good faith" but... it kinda works. Alessandro
Il martedì 25 febbraio 2020, 17:11:44 CET, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I know no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image - the license must be a free license PD or CC-by - it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia - it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS, the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on the commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and hence the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently been added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I know no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it doesnt it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS, the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on the commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that is used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any of the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is not acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and
hence
the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’ as used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I
know
no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if they are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards.
We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects.
The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws, both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that action of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to make it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that
is
used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any
of
the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is
not
acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and
hence
the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of ‘notable’
as
used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I
know
no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if
they
are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information.
The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted
at
Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects.
The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
YEs Commons does have it all laid out at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS so that everyone can follow those steps.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:08, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws, both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that action of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what OTRS adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it is NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of copyright and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only result is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to function as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does the worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of the deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science awards and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool we want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons cant have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to
make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia. Commons supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that
is
used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes
Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any
of
the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by design acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is
not
acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and
hence
the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of
‘notable’ as
used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I
know
no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if
they
are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information.
The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are
deleted at
Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects.
The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Hoi, No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original copyright holder is that as well.
Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order for OTRS to function for all of us. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws, both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that action of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue in the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a reference is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules
and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
unfit
for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it
is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is to be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier to say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under a WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere with a more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at the time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to be seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does
the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there are other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is not fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of
the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool
we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is now within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata items including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons
cant
have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue
doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey
is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to
make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a potential solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would still enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name
wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia.
Commons
supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file that
is
used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes
Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of any
of
the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by
design
acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual is
not
acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it, and
hence
the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not otherwise educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of
‘notable’
as
used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far as I
know
no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if
they
are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information.
The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are
deleted
at
Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other"
projects.
The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
Scope is a Commons community decision, OTRS is solely about licensing
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO do what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is NOT covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the original copyright holder is that as well.
Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order for OTRS to function for all of us. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright laws, both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in regards to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that
action
of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
in
the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved in the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing rules
and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
unfit
for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated what
OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that it
is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude is
to
be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is easier
to
say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available under
a
WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere
with a
more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at
the
time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to
be
seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it does
the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there
are
other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is
not
fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because of
the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia tool
we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is
now
within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata
items
including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons
cant
have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was
that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there
must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks
for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the
underlying
assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents
on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt the policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets
rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue
doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey
is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr to
make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a
potential
solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would
still
enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name
wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia.
Commons
supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file
that
is
used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes
Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of
any
of
the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by
design
acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual
is
not
acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it,
and
hence
the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not
otherwise
educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of
‘notable’
as
used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has
apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far
as I
know
no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and if
they
are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our
information.
The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are
deleted
at
Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other"
projects.
The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
Hoi, Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the Commons community to decide otherwise.
When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on another project. Thanks, Gerard
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Scope is a Commons community decision, OTRS is solely about licensing
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO
do
what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is
NOT
covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the
original
copyright holder is that as well.
Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order for OTRS to function for all of us. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as
put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright
laws,
both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in
regards
to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that
action
of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
in
the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved
in
the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing
rules
and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
unfit
for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated
what
OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that
it
is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude
is
to
be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is
easier
to
say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available
under
a
WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere
with a
more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at
the
time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to
be
seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it
does
the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there
are
other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is
not
fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because
of
the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia
tool
we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on
Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is
now
within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata
items
including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons
cant
have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started
was
that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there
must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks
for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that
to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the
underlying
assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents
on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt
the
policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets
rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue
doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the
grey
is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr
to
make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a
potential
solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would
still
enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name
wrote:
This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia.
Commons
supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has.
As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file
that
is
used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes
Wikidata.
Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of
any
of
the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by
design
acceptable to Commons.
If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual
is
not
acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it,
and
hence
the link to the image on Commons.
Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not
otherwise
educational).
None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of
‘notable’
as
used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant.
The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has
apparently
been
added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far
as I
know
no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and
if
they
are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed.
Michael
> On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote: > > Hoi, > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
> Wikipedia. > > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We
> are actively asking them for images to illustrate our
information.
The
best > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are
deleted
at
> Commons. > > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
it > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other"
projects.
The
> projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
> different from English Wikipedia. > Thanks, > GerardM > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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 a slight tangent, but please let's be slightly more precise with wording about what free media content Wikimedia Commons legitimately hosts.
The scope of Wikimedia Commons is to host all free media with any rationale for "reasonable educational reuse".[1] The vast majority of content never will be used on any other sister Wikimedia project. This means: * "Reasonable" in a very wide sense, including cultural value, historical value, illustrative use. So some random modern photograph of a couple kissing in the street might be out of scope, but if the photograph was taken 80 years ago, then it has historic value, or if the photograph was at a pride march, then it probably has cultural and illustrative value. * "Reuse" is anywhere and "educational" is subject to generous and very wide interpretations of potential value. This means media that someone would find quite interesting for illustrating a school project, or as a pretty screensaver on their phone, or because it's something illustrative about cats to post on Twitter.
Consequently, Wikimedia Commons is *not* limited to what might be "notable" for an encyclopaedia, so there is no automatic deletion for yet another photograph of someone's breakfast, nor even for a selfie photo, so long as there can be a case made by anyone for reasonable reuse.
The only areas where additional guidelines often lead to deletions (and difficult deletion discussion), is for media with demonstrated issues of invasion of privacy or consent,[2] apparent harassment, or a not very special photo of private parts[3] of a specific type for which we happen to have plenty to choose from already. Lastly, policies do evolve, albeit very slowly, and no local policy overrides the WMF top-level policies such as on privacy or harassment.
This tangent was not about copyright, so before anyone points it out, "free media" has a quite specific definition at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Licensing. But that's a rabbit-hole of its own.
Links 1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope 2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_peopl... 3. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Nudity#New_uploads
Fae
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:56, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Commons is a project with a specific purpose. It is to host all media that fits the use of any other project. As it is English Wikipedia notability standards are used to justify why files are not to be kept on Commons. This is contrary to its very purpose, it is not acceptable and it is not for the Commons community to decide otherwise.
When at OTRS a license is given for the unfettered use of media respecting an approved license, there is no argument, no rule inside OTRS itself that is applicable particularly when that media is explicitly asked for on another project. Thanks, Gerard
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:39, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Scope is a Commons community decision, OTRS is solely about licensing
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:30, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, No it is an administrative process. It follows its own rules IN ORDER TO
do
what it does. The notion that material is to be useful to Wikipedia is
NOT
covered by any legal restraints. This notion that is alive and well, the notion that copyright can be retroactively applied never mind the
original
copyright holder is that as well.
Yes, the underlying work is legal, the process is definitely not and consequently the process has to be revisited, is to be revisited in order for OTRS to function for all of us. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 08:09, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
to quote Gerard
There is no law that insists on the existing rules and regulations as
put
forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly unfit
for purpose.
OTRS is very much a legal process because its related to Copyright
laws,
both in the US and in the country in which they reside. Every transaction(image upload) is a person giving away their rights in
regards
to that work OTRS needs to ensure that the person is fully aware of the consequences of that action. OTRS holds an absolute record of that
action
of when it took place, it protects all parties should there be an issue
in
the future in particular the WMF and our volunteers who were involved
in
the process.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 13:57, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Thank you for demonstrating the extend OTRS is not fit for purpose. I understand that OTRS is governed by rules and regulations but a
reference
is made to "legal". There is no law that insists on the existing
rules
and
regulations as put forward, rules and regulations that are blatantly
unfit
for purpose.
Particularly the line: "- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia" is problematic because either this is a list as stated
what
OTRS
adheres to or, it is not. It is a negative and as such it reads that
it
is
NOT about any Wikipedia and its vagaries.
Yet again it is brought to the attention that the negative attitude
is
to
be acceptable because of a perceived workload. Apparently it is
easier
to
say no than to say yes and that is in itself mystifying.
OTRS has not moved on with the time and as such it does not even know selfies... An issue not confined to OTRS is that understanding of
copyright
and licensing is dim anyway. When a copyright holder provides us with material, it is licensed by the copyright holder to be available
under
a
WMF permitted license. When the copyright holder provides it under a secondary license elsewhere or when our material is used elsewhere
with a
more restrictive license, it does not follow that we are in breach of copyright. I have fought such "delete on sight" battles and the only
result
is no response on the image that was to be speedily deleted. The rule should be; when material is provided to us, the license is checked at
the
time and any and all issues NOT involving the copyright holder are to
be
seen as irrelevant.
OTRS is a Wikimedia Foundation sanctioned function. It insists to
function
as is and therefore *a new mandate is required* because as is, it
does
the
worst possible service. There is no Wikipedia, there are 300+, there
are
other projects that require a functioning Commons and as it is, it is
not
fit for purpose.
You may remember when English Wikipedia had egg on its face because
of
the
deletion of what became a Nobel prize winner. There are MANY science
awards
and we want a picture for all awardees in addition, in the Scholia
tool
we
want pictures of any and all people that authored a paper. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 02:06, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
For legal reasons OTRS requires very specific wording, it declines permissions that fail to meet that very strict wording.
The person must;
- establish their authority to license the image
- the license must be a free license PD or CC-by
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
- it needs a URL to associate the permission with
If the media meets these requirements than it will be accept, if it
doesnt
it gets rejected. Scope is something that gets decided on on
Commons.
Wikidata has had an impact on scope, quite literally everything is
now
within scope. We havent even yet got to the issue about Wikidata
items
including trademarked logos and copyrighted works for which Commons
cant
have images under fairuse
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started
was
that
taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there
must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks
for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that
to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the
photo
they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the
underlying
assumption is that that isnt possible. The vast majority of agents
on
the
commons permission queue are people from commons who have learnt
the
policies and have the tools to do the work.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets
rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue
doesnt
get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the
grey
is
treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
In an ideal scenario a closer relationship with google via flickr
to
make
it possible for Wikidata to link in there as well would be a
potential
solution to those areas where copyright is an issue as it would
still
enable the ability of having an image accessible via a link.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 05:00, Michael Maggs michael@maggs.name
wrote:
> This has nothing to do with Commons only supporting Wikipedia.
Commons
> supports ALL of the Wikimedia projects, and always has. > > As is quite clearly set out in the Commons SCOPE policy, “a file
that
is
> used in good faith on a Wikimedia project is always considered > educational”, and hence is in scope. Of course, that includes
Wikidata.
> > Under the same policy, Commons does not editorialise on behalf of
any
of
> the projects, and an image that is acceptable to Wikidata is by
design
> acceptable to Commons. > > If the Wikidata community considers that an item on an individual
is
not
> acceptable (for example because it has been added solely for > self-promotion), Wikidata can - under its own rules - delete it,
and
hence > the link to the image on Commons. > > Commons would then delete the image as not in use (and not
otherwise
> educational). > > None of this relies in any way on the specific definition of
‘notable’
as
> used on the Wikipedias; that’s simply not relevant. > > The problem here seems to be an additional hurdle that has
apparently
been > added to the guidance given to OTRS volunteers. OTRS has so far
as I
know > no mandate to decline images that fall within Commons Scope, and
if
they
> are indeed doing that, the guidance should be changed. > > Michael > > > On 25 Feb 2020, at 16:11, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > > Hoi, > > Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only
support
> > Wikipedia. > > > > At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our
standards.
We > > are actively asking them for images to illustrate our
information.
The
> best > > suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are
deleted
at
> > Commons. > > > > When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label
Wikipedia,
> it > > is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other"
projects.
The > > projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria > > different from English Wikipedia. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages 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>
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2020 August 5 to 9 hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.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
Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding. Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different perspective must be evil or incompetent.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand. And there must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration. But there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose* of use on Wikipedia. That is one of the most common motivations for submitting files.
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking photos of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must have been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for the subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to OTRS, the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible.
It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph, because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file, and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected. The very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that they have the rights to do so.
Emufarmers
Hoi, Benjamin is it fair to expect that you are a Wikipedian first and a Wikimedian second? The problem with perception is that it differs from where you stand. One of the easiest things to solve on all the Wikipedias are false friends but hey I stand with data and the Wikipedia perception is that it is not much of a problem (statistically it is).
When people write scientific papers about Wikipedia, English Wikipedia is to be included on penalty of not finding a publisher (a quote from a Dutch professor at a Wikimedia conference). When the last resort for keeping images on Commons, OTRS, has a not so public policy where for images to be accepted the English Wikipedia notability policy is expected. What does it take for you to alter your perception. What does it take for us to understand how big this bias is and how insidious its effects are?
Perception, opinions provides the worst guidance because they allow you to deny the facts that are in front of you. Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 09:32, Benjamin Lees emufarmers@gmail.com wrote:
Like Peter, I do not see a clear connection to the proposed rebranding. Threads of this sort would be more constructive if they were framed in a way that does not unnecessarily tie in every other issue one might have with the movement, and that does not imply that anybody with a different perspective must be evil or incompetent.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 8:06 PM Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
- it must not say the use is to, for, or on Wikipedia
A file must not say it is *exclusively* for the use of Wikipedia, because such a condition is incompatible with the license we demand. And there must be an actual license--"Wikipedia can use my picture" is the classic submission that requires us to ask for a proper licensing declaration. But there is certainly no problem if somebody submits a file for the *purpose* of use on Wikipedia. That is one of the most common motivations for submitting files.
Commons has fallen behind when it comes to the capability of taking
photos
of ones self (selfies) the default position when Commons started was that taking a high quality photograph of yourself wasnt possible there must
have
been someone else pushing the button. What happens is Commons asks for
the
subject to obtain permission from the photographer and submit that to
OTRS,
the systems falls over because the photographer cant prove that the photo they took of themselves was taken by themselves because the underlying assumption is that that isnt possible.
It does appear to be standard practice to ask who took a photograph, because in a great many cases, it was not the person submitting the file, and many people do not realize that the photographer, rather than the subject, owns the copyright. (As Gerard says, "understanding of copyright and licensing is dim".) I don't think anybody treats "the picture looks good" as creating an irrebuttable presumption that it is not a selfie, but different users do have different views of how not-a-selfie-looking a given file is and of how much verification should be performed more generally.
OTRS permission behaves as expected because there is a very narrow
definition of whats acceptable, anything that doesnt fit gets rejected.
The
very real need to be pro-active in ensuring the permissions queue doesnt get overwhelmed and backlogged contributes to the fact that the grey is treated as black -- close it, delete it, move on.
My impression is that most agents go to reasonable (and sometimes excessive) lengths to give people submitting files a chance to show that they have the rights to do so.
Emufarmers _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons? This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related. For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not think this issue is necessarily related. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with OTRS. As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios. Otherwise, use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.
Apparently some OTRS volunteers follow some outdated procedures - including that one related to selfies, which was mentioned - but that is a problem exclusively with OTRS. I'm part of that team, and I always had the freedom to decide which looked like a genuine selfie, and which was problematic at that (e.g., with a copyright notice at the metadata). And, as far as I know, anyone willing to help fixing those problems at OTRS is very much welcome there. When the volunteers are very few, and the ones complaining do not volunteer themselves, it only adds up to the pressure on the few existing volunteers, making everything worse.
Best, Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia quarta, 26/02/2020 à(s) 06:04:
This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons? This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related. For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do not think this issue is necessarily related. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on other projects
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The best suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia, it is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 clarity Paulo. Is there a way to move more of the underlying policies onto a public wiki rather than a closed one, to limit some of this confusion?
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 5:36 a.m. Paulo Santos Perneta, < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
The OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with OTRS. As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios. Otherwise, use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.
Apparently some OTRS volunteers follow some outdated procedures - including that one related to selfies, which was mentioned - but that is a problem exclusively with OTRS. I'm part of that team, and I always had the freedom to decide which looked like a genuine selfie, and which was problematic at that (e.g., with a copyright notice at the metadata). And, as far as I know, anyone willing to help fixing those problems at OTRS is very much welcome there. When the volunteers are very few, and the ones complaining do not volunteer themselves, it only adds up to the pressure on the few existing volunteers, making everything worse.
Best, Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia quarta, 26/02/2020 à(s) 06:04:
This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons? This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it is jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related. For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do
not
think this issue is necessarily related. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on
other
projects
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards. We are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects. The projects who operate to different standards who have notability criteria different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
Lets move this along towards a solution;
Maybe the simplest solution is to create a delinker type bot that flags images which were used on Wikidata but the data item has since been deleted thus flagging the file for review on Commons.
This addresses the concerns over spam Wikidata id's being created to enable an image to be uploaded.
WD and Commons community could both request that the person emailing OTRS with permission identifies the WikiData item its intended for. Every image were permission is being received it should have an association with a WikiData item as its necessary to fill in the structured data field anyway.
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 21:41, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for this clarity Paulo. Is there a way to move more of the underlying policies onto a public wiki rather than a closed one, to limit some of this confusion?
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 5:36 a.m. Paulo Santos Perneta, < paulosperneta@gmail.com> wrote:
The OP is misleading. The issue is not with Commons at all, but with
OTRS.
As far as I know, Commons never, ever, deleted a file which was in use in any Wikimedia project, with the notable expectation of copyvios.
Otherwise,
use in *any* wikimedia project = on scope for Commons.
Apparently some OTRS volunteers follow some outdated procedures -
including
that one related to selfies, which was mentioned - but that is a problem exclusively with OTRS. I'm part of that team, and I always had the
freedom
to decide which looked like a genuine selfie, and which was problematic
at
that (e.g., with a copyright notice at the metadata). And, as far as I know, anyone willing to help fixing those problems at OTRS is very much welcome there. When the volunteers are very few, and the ones complaining do not volunteer themselves, it only adds up to the pressure on the few existing volunteers, making everything worse.
Best, Paulo
Peter Southwood peter.southwood@telkomsa.net escreveu no dia quarta, 26/02/2020 à(s) 06:04:
This does seem unreasonable. Do they have an explanation at Commons? This is happening without standardising in one label Wikipedia, so it
is
jumping to quite a conclusion to assume that the issue is related. For the record, I am also opposed to rebranding to Wikipedia, but I do
not
think this issue is necessarily related. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 6:10 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Why renaming to Wikipedia will wreak havoc on
other
projects
Hoi, Apparantly at Commons they have standardised themselves to only support Wikipedia.
At Wikidata we have people who are notable according to our standards.
We
are actively asking them for images to illustrate our information. The
best
suggestion we get is: do not ask for images because they are deleted at Commons.
When this is what awaits us when we standardise on one label Wikipedia,
it
is obvious that this is the worst scenario for the "other" projects.
The
projects who operate to different standards who have notability
criteria
different from English Wikipedia. Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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@lists.wikimedia.org