Hoi,
- Many people no longer trust Commons to store their media files. People are more certain that their files will remain available when they upload media files to their own project. - Many media files exist on many projects waiting for transfer to Commons. It does not happen and consequently those media files are not generally available. - Media files exist on multiple wikis because they are acceptable to them for reasons defined at those wikis. Theoretically the same file is stored in many locations. - Wikidata has started its development that will "Wikidatify" much of the meta data of media files
These things are all true and typically they are seen in isolation. When the process of bringing Wikidata to Commons really gets under way, Commons will finally become usable for people who do not know English. When this process is complete, it is reasonable to expect that functionality will build upon the information that is held in this way.
It is equally reasonable that the projects who have their own media files will insist that this new functionality will be available for their media files as well. Consequently it is extremely likely that all media files will be Wikidatified.
The opportunity exist to have all this data in one "multimedia Wikidata". It would mean that when a Commons admin decides for his reasons that a file is no longer available, that a local admin can address his reasons and decide that it is available for his project. When a file is marked ad being available for transfer, it is technically only a different setting about that media file. I would not be surprised when in the technical infrastructure a file exists only once anyway.
As far as I am concerned, when people are searching for any excuse to deny the existence of an image, it is extremely similar to pushing a POV. When people find that some users are only involved in pushing such a POV, it should be obvious what happens next. This would not be a third or fourth iteration of saving one image at a time.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 17 June 2014 20:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The opportunity exist to have all this data in one "multimedia Wikidata". It would mean that when a Commons admin decides for his reasons that a file is no longer available, that a local admin can address his reasons and decide that it is available for his project. When a file is marked ad being available for transfer, it is technically only a different setting about that media file. I would not be surprised when in the technical infrastructure a file exists only once anyway.
I predict this will be unacceptable to Commons admins. The reasons advanced will be legal fears. (The actual reasons will be loss of power for Commons admins banned on a pile of other projects.)
- d.
Hoi, The first project that will be Wikidatified is Commons. The reasons to do this are functional. Commons is not usable when you want to find something that it there. When you do not know English, it is a black hole.
What arguments are there to deny this? Obviously, there are many reasons to ignore this. The most important reason why we need to Wikidatify Commons is to make sure that it can be used by all our projects. Denying this to happen is denying the core functionality of Commons. Legalities only happen once you have something that is functional Thanks, GerardM
On 17 June 2014 22:06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17 June 2014 20:53, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The opportunity exist to have all this data in one "multimedia Wikidata". It would mean that when a Commons admin decides for his reasons that a
file
is no longer available, that a local admin can address his reasons and decide that it is available for his project. When a file is marked ad
being
available for transfer, it is technically only a different setting about that media file. I would not be surprised when in the technical infrastructure a file exists only once anyway.
I predict this will be unacceptable to Commons admins. The reasons advanced will be legal fears. (The actual reasons will be loss of power for Commons admins banned on a pile of other projects.)
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 17 June 2014 21:06, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I predict this will be unacceptable to Commons admins. The reasons advanced will be legal fears. (The actual reasons will be loss of power for Commons admins banned on a pile of other projects.)
Not all of us are banned on other projects. In practice what is suggested is possible already. Per Resolution:Licensing policy local projects can have an exemption doctrine policy (incidentally does anyone know if there is a central list of these?) and upload stuff that can't be uploaded on commons.
As long as it doesn't then get transferred to commons this isn't a problem for commons.
The group it actually sucks for is OTRS. Dealing with copyright issues raised about the English Wikipedia is fairly straightforward. Commons is slightly harder but still doable. Finding admins from other projects presents more of a challenge.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
exemption doctrine policy (incidentally does anyone know if there is a central list of these?)
Yeah, I've often wished there was a central list at Meta (and I'm glad the legal team set up a central place for Alternate Disclosure Policies). But, at least there's Wikidata:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11160614#sitelinks-wikipedia
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
I believe they are generally supposed to be listed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Non-free_content which looks relatively up to date, though it does not look like the resolution actually requires it.
James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 9:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
exemption doctrine policy (incidentally does anyone know if there is a central list of these?)
Yeah, I've often wished there was a central list at Meta (and I'm glad the legal team set up a central place for Alternate Disclosure Policies). But, at least there's Wikidata:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11160614#sitelinks-wikipedia
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-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