Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
The scope of Commons is actually much less, than en.wikipedia uploading to Commons is not a great introduction to the movement copyright and more complex than just fixing a spelling error or adding a statement.
We do need to more to encourage uploading of media files, WLE, WLM do work towards that more on the ground engagement within communities, and seeking support from within the photography community where mine, mine, mine, dont ask for free stuff is big issue because way to many commercial operators want everything for free, we forget that photography is an expensive hobby you cant just borrow gear from a library or read online like you can with sourcing written content.
Personally I think WLE, WLM need bigger budgets all round with sponsors from retail outlets offering photography prizes and WMF & Affiliates offering the primary prize that lets people buy gear like cameras and lenses
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 11:05, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 Sun, 17 May 2020 at 05:12, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
Personally I think WLE, WLM need bigger budgets all round with sponsors from retail outlets offering photography prizes and WMF & Affiliates offering the primary prize that lets people buy gear like cameras and lenses
The size of those contests means the average content has little chance of winning. On top of that phones are in most cases good enough. Attempts to throw money at the problem haven't been that effective. Wikimedia UK has equipment for loan but use levels vary. Providing tickets to things has some success but again rather mixed. Ultimately you tend to run into the problem that wikipedia editing tends to be a solo activity and most people don't want to deal with formal links to organisations.
Geni
Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.
I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed solution was to set up another website for media files that would allow media with NC restrictions.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 NC discussion from memory fell in that they impacted the ability to include them in Wikipedia pages that are then rebroadcast by people like Google and answers.com because it was a more restrictive license.
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 12:44, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.
I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed solution was to set up another website for media files that would allow media with NC restrictions.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
This was discussed a number of times[sic.] onwiki and there was no consensus at all to allow NC on commons.
Citing from Commons:Village pump/Copyright: "One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.ump/Copyright"
I agree with Gnangarra .
Best, Steinsplitter
________________________________ Von: Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org im Auftrag von Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2020 06:49 An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
the NC discussion from memory fell in that they impacted the ability to include them in Wikipedia pages that are then rebroadcast by people like Google and answers.com because it was a more restrictive license.
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 12:44, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.
I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed solution was to set up another website for media files that would allow media with NC restrictions.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.
- Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.
see: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim... - Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the question why to publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
- There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some Wikipedians are living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters. - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
If memory serves me correctly, as Steinsplitter said, there has been pushback on Commons regarding allowing NC-licensed images on Commons, but I can't recall if there was a consensus regarding having a site that is an alternative to Commons and allow images with NC licenses. I'm not sure how much discussion there was regarding setting up a new sister project for this purpose. I can imagine that one argument against it would be that it could cause confusion, but I think that with a good UI design that could be fixed. However, I'm not sure that the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we have.
I think you've hit the nail on the head Pine with
However, I'm not sure that the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we have.
We really need to address the lack of cross project support and community by further integration of projects rather than create more stand alone projects.
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 14:42, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
If memory serves me correctly, as Steinsplitter said, there has been pushback on Commons regarding allowing NC-licensed images on Commons, but I can't recall if there was a consensus regarding having a site that is an alternative to Commons and allow images with NC licenses. I'm not sure how much discussion there was regarding setting up a new sister project for this purpose. I can imagine that one argument against it would be that it could cause confusion, but I think that with a good UI design that could be fixed. However, I'm not sure that the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we have.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.
see: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the question why to publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some Wikipedians are living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above, covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments: 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place. However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there. Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity" problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects). 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook, Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosti...
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media, nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above, covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place. However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there. Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity" problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects). 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook, Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
for
the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
"there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.
We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith. We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader.
However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess. A.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com ha scritto:
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosti...
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media, nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above, covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place. However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there. Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity" problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects). 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook, Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
for
the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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, Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable.
It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with wikidata and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that English Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably in the same database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is part of English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material to use in whatever project, the license limits what you can use, what you find. For material that we want to include that has an incompatible license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects and we may choose if and how we expose it to the world.
Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects, the other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original that is reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is not available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material.
The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and bring options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise stuff that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world beyond the two U-s. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
"there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.
We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith. We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader.
However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess. A.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosti...
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media, nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above, covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia
Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the
scope
of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place. However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated
there.
Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this
"popularity"
problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects). 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue
of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On
Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This
is a
major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts
an
ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
for
the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or
in
the user account, adding categories without any automatic support,
etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
> Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I have no doubt that on the long-term solutions will be found. Even if structural data were IMHO presented and used poorly, the catalyzing effect of them and Wikidata will be there. I am also in full support for the creation of a parallel Commons for NC files as well, which will also speed up many processes. I am not interested in some ideological stance about the matter, if we can keep NC files locally, we can also on a general platforms, or we don't keep them at all.
The point is that such solutions will never really originate from a big part of the community of Commons (including part of OTRS), they simply cannot stem from a community structured the way some users actively shaped it over the years, encouraging a self-referential "righteous" vision. Think about what occurred with Wikidata, I saw users being trolled for discussing about its future role the beginning, but they were mostly right, I don't see the Commons users who invented paranoid scenarios to justify their behavior even thinking about that now.
I don't have time to protect the social roles of users who behave in such a poor way. If I can solve things just going around them, I do so. It is a failure, but it's not the fault of many among us. After I have to fix problems from actions that could have simply being avoided with just a tiny amount of good sense, I don't have time to discuss that there might be a better way of doing thing to users who will just ignore that and go to the first occasion to reproduce the same behavior again, because they are even rewarded for that. It takes me hours and I don't have any energy left, certainly not even to rename a file, create a category or verify a license. I don't have even energy to present it nicely to a third part who is witnessing that. I don't care how certain users look, because they are the first ones who don't care about the consequence of their actions. Over the years, I am more convinced that the best solution is to let them go. It does not matter if the backlog obviously increases. When we will be free to set up more functional solutions, the backlog can be reduced quite easily. I have therefore stopped many years ago to perform any actions outside my projects and I am happy that way. I am sure I am not the only one. I am slways happy to create tool outside of such bubble, of course, but not a lot inside it.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 20:14:49 CEST, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com ha scritto:
Hoi,Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable. It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with wikidata and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that English Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably in the same database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is part of English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material to use in whatever project, the license limits what you can use, what you find. For material that we want to include that has an incompatible license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects and we may choose if and how we expose it to the world. Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects, the other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original that is reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is not available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material. The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and bring options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise stuff that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world beyond the two U-s.Thanks, GerardM On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
"there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.
We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith. We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader.
However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess. A.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com ha scritto:
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosti...
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media, nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above, covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place. However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there. Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity" problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects). 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook, Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
for
the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello, I would like to support Roland's and other's remarks that Wikimedia Commons has some serious problems and needs improvement in many ways. Some of these problems are very difficult to overcome, such as a better, multilingual search because we don't have all the necessary meta data. Other problems could be dealt with in a short time. For example, the main page (or main pages, in the different languages) has too many items and links. General and less general links; links to content by topic; links to other Wikimedia wikis, links to mainpages in other languages. Some of this is repeated in the left side bar. All together, also with general wiki function links - I counted 291 links or things to click on!
My ideal would be a clean page * with a short explanation what the site is or does, * and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search content", "contribute content", "learn more". Is it a realistic dream of me that we would see such a clean-up within the next 5 or 50 years? Kind regards Ziko
Am So., 17. Mai 2020 um 17:25 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org:
"there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.
We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith. We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader.
However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess. A.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosti...
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media, nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above, covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia
Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the
scope
of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place. However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated
there.
Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this
"popularity"
problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects). 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue
of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On
Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This
is a
major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts
an
ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
for
the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or
in
the user account, adding categories without any automatic support,
etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
> Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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, Dear Ziko, your proposal is business as usual. The biggest question we should ask is not what do we do but WHY do we do it. When we decide that Open Content is there to be used, it follows that it is a key performance indicator to know to what extend we serve a public and what public we have, could have and how we can expand our public.
The current notion that people where we only consider how many people see images in Wikipedia makes Commons objectives secondary to Wikipedia. We do not care if people can find pictures in Commons and to be brutal I have given up, I do really want Commons to serve my needs as a blogger. We do not know the number of people who download our content, we do not know what people think of the usability as a resource of freely licensed material. We only consider Commons at the front end (ingestion) and not at the backend
We should care because THAT is our mission. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 11:31, Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello, I would like to support Roland's and other's remarks that Wikimedia Commons has some serious problems and needs improvement in many ways. Some of these problems are very difficult to overcome, such as a better, multilingual search because we don't have all the necessary meta data. Other problems could be dealt with in a short time. For example, the main page (or main pages, in the different languages) has too many items and links. General and less general links; links to content by topic; links to other Wikimedia wikis, links to mainpages in other languages. Some of this is repeated in the left side bar. All together, also with general wiki function links - I counted 291 links or things to click on!
My ideal would be a clean page
- with a short explanation what the site is or does,
- and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search
content", "contribute content", "learn more". Is it a realistic dream of me that we would see such a clean-up within the next 5 or 50 years? Kind regards Ziko
Am So., 17. Mai 2020 um 17:25 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org:
"there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a
way
that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow,
if
you want it.
We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep
the
other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they
almost
never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need
people
that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We
don't
need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith. We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is
on
line instead of simply asking the uploader.
However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent
majority
of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's
only
fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess. A.
Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post earlier this year:
https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosti...
However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media, nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there
are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term blocked on other projects, does not help either
Best Yaroslav
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion
above,
covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia
Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the
scope
of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took
place.
However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated
there.
Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or
an
alternative version of Commons). 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need
to
spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this
"popularity"
problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans, initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other
projects).
- Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue
of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.) 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On
Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This
is a
major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here
also, I
am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics,
and
email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
Thanks User:Titodutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger roland.unger@soziologie.uni-halle.de wrote:
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
Commons.
Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters.
We
had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody
starts
an
ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new
users
for
the movement.
see:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikim...
Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There
is
the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
Pinterest?
There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
Some
Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
user
interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or
in
the user account, adding categories without any automatic support,
etc.).
I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because
most
problems are known already now.
I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because
all
Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
Roland
>> Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 Sun, 17 May 2020 at 10:32, Tito Dutta trulytito@gmail.com wrote:
- I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
In August 2019 this question was brought up in the first round (iteration) of the Recommendations. It was unfortunately intertwined with another heavy, but tangential topic: the ToU. Accordingly half of the discussions are unrelated to this question on the page. There was quite a bit of drama caused by the superficial proposal, I'm surprised it's already forgotten :-D https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommen...
The most acceptable solution proposed at that time was a separate wiki that would run the same software as Commons: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki That's a pretty good proposal (actually the second one in years) that has run out of energy, just like the previous one.
IMHO Commons and the mediawiki software gives no benefits over popular and easy-to-use image sharing services for non-wikipedians. Additionally, on wiki newcomers can get dragged into wikidramas despite their best intent and there is no protection for them. Learning the non-straightforward communication patterns on-wiki and establishing a "standing" is a multi-year effort, which simply is not necessary on the popular platforms. There content creators can focus on building their follower-base instead. The features and services they benefit from don't coincide with the features the wiki software and communities are creating or looking for. Uploading to Wikimedia is more like an ideological statement that might require significant investment without benefits or with unexpected negative benefits. Tl;dr: why would anyone take a hard and uncomfortable path, when there is an easy and beneficial path.
Regardless, a not-strictly-free media-hosting wiki would be great imho. For wikipedians. To develop a product and culture that's suitable for regular photographers would require talented and strongly motivated IT and HR personnel, which is not present in the WMF, nor is it attainable: we've seen people, who have put their hearts into their work, just to leave prematurely, under unclear circumstances. Presumably the work environment is not supportive of people who could envision and manifest such a product.
- Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to Wikimedia Commons.
That's true for me. As a newcomer / non-wikipedian the first issue I had with "Commons" was: "What does it mean?" I think outside Wikimedia this name might be meaningless for many people. "The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth." Though there is logic in that, it's very abstract. I don't associate that naturally with "Let's share my photos!" Rather, it makes me think of sharing the water I bring from a fountain.
I remember when I've learned it's about sharing media - images primarily - I was thrilled. After uploading dozens of images, requesting and learning AWB - to effectively manage images in batches - my impression is it's good to have, but takes serious, hard work to use it properly, involving some advanced level form-filling skills, that's fun to learn (at least for me, just for the challenge), but not fun to do regularly and I assume it's not even fun to learn for many people.
- Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation) Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a star) is good for motivation as well.
IMHO the primary motivation to use those platforms is the social aspect: creating a follower-base, that brings the benefits: patreon, social influencing, gigs. Wikis don't have these incentives, the rules of the game (in terms of game theory) are fundamentally different, social status is not the result of how engaging the content is. The effective strategies on wiki might not be interesting or suitable for content creators. To expect them to invest effort into Wikimedia would require something given in exchange: a modern, comfortable interface and a welcoming community.
Aron
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 08:33, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might actually attract a few high quality photographers.
Pretty sure the most common license terms would breach the upload conditions of one or both of those sites. The problem is that most websites ask for a non exclusive license to whatever they want want with an image without giving credit which pretty much limits you to PD or MIT
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:05, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
Perhaps although similar research with regards to wikipedia has never produced particularly useful results.
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin deletes ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra... https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project, it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 keep using Commons/OTRS with newbies, but I warned them how dysfunctional it can be. it's not really about doing things properly but how they look a certain way to people with a certain mindset. Addressing issues of copyright has limited correlation with what people who know superficially the summary of a guideline think copyright is.
Years ago I used to teach newbies how to create Commons categories as well. unfortunately I had to teach them also Wikidata until they asked me why better categorization using structured data were not possible. it was already 2016 and teaching manual categorization was starting to sound ridiculous, so was also showing the "controlled" chaos of confusing standard about used languages and pattern in the category tree.
I tried to explain these facts to some established Commons users but you know how they behave... at that point I realized that when they were talking about "complication for newbies" they were mostly talking about themselves and their rigid vision. So, like many people, I gave up.
Nowadays if I can spend part of a class to teach how to create Commons categories I mostly ignore that option. I teach how to create rich WIkidata items, and when they upload an image I tell them to put a nice description, coordinates or a generic category of the administrative entity and use the image with P18. You have all you need from Wikidata to quickly set up a solid categorization if you really want to do so, it's just overall attitude. Slowly, some form of automation has started to appear, so fine with that so far,
Of course we do a lot of work in any case, for example I pushed for better categorization from Wikisource upload, and when Wiki Loves Monuments arrives in my area we are very accurate, despite 5000-10000 new images we provide a lot of commons categories through Wikidata. But even in that case, we do it at our own risk. We create empty categories where we known they will be filled soon because photographers tell us so, but we risk them to be deleted. In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do. They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin deletes ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra... https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project, it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab... ). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project, it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things were obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the workflow. There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects like "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a dimension where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we have people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort there is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that more unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect when it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab... ). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project, it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things were obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the workflow. There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects like "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a dimension where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we have people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort there is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that more unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect when it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game( https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than 100,200,500px on the long edge.
Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data. The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest images first.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
were
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
workflow.
There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
like
"documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
dimension
where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
have
people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
there
is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
more
unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
when
it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
caring
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you
want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear
I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is
something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation
which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We
welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million images? And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious statement.
We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
--- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons ________________________________________________________________________________
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game( https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than 100,200,500px on the long edge.
Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data. The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest images first.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
were
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
workflow.
There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
like
"documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
dimension
where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
have
people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
there
is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
more
unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
when
it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
caring
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you
want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear
I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is
something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation
which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We
welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I know their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this slows down. We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them top-down, they need a bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of engaged users to make it grow.
If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see some users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent to finf low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as well. Since they have limited structural role, working on that should be easier.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org ha scritto:
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million images? And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious statement.
We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
--- New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons ________________________________________________________________________________
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game( https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than 100,200,500px on the long edge.
Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data. The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest images first.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
were
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
workflow.
There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
like
"documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
dimension
where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
have
people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
there
is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
more
unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
when
it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
caring
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you
want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear
I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is
something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation
which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We
welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
it all comes back to "Who is our audience" and "How do we need/want to engage with them"
If you start on the mainpage, follow the about link, then follow to scope there is no clear just a vague anyone...
I think we need to be honest in the assessment of our true audience, thats basically the WMF projects therefore our purpose is "to make freely licensed media accessible across all movement projects"
Like the movement strategy process we need to dissect what we are trying to achieve and how we can get there, and then come up with a solution to address what we already have so its all consistent. At the moment we are developing differing concepts, tools, policies in isolation .
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 23:34, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I know their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this slows down. We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them top-down, they need a bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of engaged users to make it grow.
If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see some users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent to finf low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as well. Since they have limited structural role, working on that should be easier.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto:
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million images? And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious statement.
We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game( https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than 100,200,500px on the long edge.
Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data. The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest images first.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what
reuses
/ transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
were
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
workflow.
There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
like
"documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of
an
important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
dimension
where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
have
people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care
about
the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
there
is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
more
unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as
they
can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
when
it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but
the
community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is
totally
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations).
Of
course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I
can
imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But
if
one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a
minimum
and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with
me: I
only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
caring
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you
want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and
of
course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They
quickly
lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera
gear
I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is
something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is
much
broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation
which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We
welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
We have two or three competing reasons to have commons like repositories:
1. Truly fully open content repository for Wikimedia projects and the world as a whole. (Commons now)
2. Truly fully open content repository in general of things which are worthy but not used in projects/articles now. (Some of Commons)
3. Commonly available repository for sufficiently free (fair use, other existing allowed cases like irreplaceable or so forth) use in at least one project so that other projects could also share the media efficiently if local content rules allow it. (Nowhere now, I’ve described as “uncommons” somewhat for its humor value as a name)
I have previously pointed out that ideally we’d have a way to unify those for easy other projects reference, but there were wailing and gnashing of teeth from developers and I list energy.
I also have pointed out that the “helpful” process of copying a non-fully-free image to Commons, local deletion due to overlap, then commons deletion removing *all* copies is pathological inter-project process behavior and we really needed to end that somehow. Also ran into much wailing and gnashing of teeth from commons people not entirely wanting to be blamed and others out of patience trying to deal with commons people, and everyone loses interest.
Perhaps we would do better off to create an uncommons and change all the for-wider-use upload tools to deposit it there, point the internal image auto linking there, and have commons out on the side as not the direct Wiki project source but a specific curated open content source. Everything in commons would be in uncommons and linked for articles etc, new fair use or irreplaceable content goes to uncommons only, and curators with open license intellectual property expertise could curate upselection of the approved bits to commons.
That should make everyone happy and be practical and implementable without horrible massive architecture changes.
-george
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2020, at 5:04 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
it all comes back to "Who is our audience" and "How do we need/want to engage with them"
If you start on the mainpage, follow the about link, then follow to scope there is no clear just a vague anyone...
I think we need to be honest in the assessment of our true audience, thats basically the WMF projects therefore our purpose is "to make freely licensed media accessible across all movement projects"
Like the movement strategy process we need to dissect what we are trying to achieve and how we can get there, and then come up with a solution to address what we already have so its all consistent. At the moment we are developing differing concepts, tools, policies in isolation .
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 23:34, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I know their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this slows down. We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them top-down, they need a bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of engaged users to make it grow.
If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see some users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent to finf low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as well. Since they have limited structural role, working on that should be easier.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto:
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million images? And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious statement.
We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game( https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than 100,200,500px on the long edge.
Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data. The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest images first.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what
reuses
/ transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
were
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
workflow.
There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
like
"documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of
an
important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
dimension
where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
have
people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care
about
the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
there
is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
more
unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as
they
can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
when
it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but
the
community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is
totally
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations).
Of
course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I
can
imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But
if
one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a
minimum
and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with
me: I
only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
caring
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you
want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and
of
course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They
quickly
lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera
gear
I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is
something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is
much
broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation
which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We
welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 remind you all the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki proposal of a Non-Free Wiki. I supported that.
If we finally create it, maybe we can organize it since the beginning in a way closer to how users active on Wikiprojects nowadays might like such repository to work. With better language integration, cross-wiki metrics, efficient structured metadata, automated categorization, transparent OTRS, a flag system that allow users to start deletion procedure only when they have a standardized and balanced degree of activity, and so on.
Once we show it works there, it would be much easier to import innovations on Commons... I am already stressed at the idea of discussing these things on Commons, but I would find interesting to set them up in a new system.
A.
Il martedì 19 maggio 2020, 03:20:37 CEST, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com ha scritto:
We have two or three competing reasons to have commons like repositories:
1. Truly fully open content repository for Wikimedia projects and the world as a whole. (Commons now)
2. Truly fully open content repository in general of things which are worthy but not used in projects/articles now. (Some of Commons)
3. Commonly available repository for sufficiently free (fair use, other existing allowed cases like irreplaceable or so forth) use in at least one project so that other projects could also share the media efficiently if local content rules allow it. (Nowhere now, I’ve described as “uncommons” somewhat for its humor value as a name)
I have previously pointed out that ideally we’d have a way to unify those for easy other projects reference, but there were wailing and gnashing of teeth from developers and I list energy.
I also have pointed out that the “helpful” process of copying a non-fully-free image to Commons, local deletion due to overlap, then commons deletion removing *all* copies is pathological inter-project process behavior and we really needed to end that somehow. Also ran into much wailing and gnashing of teeth from commons people not entirely wanting to be blamed and others out of patience trying to deal with commons people, and everyone loses interest.
Perhaps we would do better off to create an uncommons and change all the for-wider-use upload tools to deposit it there, point the internal image auto linking there, and have commons out on the side as not the direct Wiki project source but a specific curated open content source. Everything in commons would be in uncommons and linked for articles etc, new fair use or irreplaceable content goes to uncommons only, and curators with open license intellectual property expertise could curate upselection of the approved bits to commons.
That should make everyone happy and be practical and implementable without horrible massive architecture changes.
-george
Sent from my iPhone
On May 18, 2020, at 5:04 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
it all comes back to "Who is our audience" and "How do we need/want to engage with them"
If you start on the mainpage, follow the about link, then follow to scope there is no clear just a vague anyone...
I think we need to be honest in the assessment of our true audience, thats basically the WMF projects therefore our purpose is "to make freely licensed media accessible across all movement projects"
Like the movement strategy process we need to dissect what we are trying to achieve and how we can get there, and then come up with a solution to address what we already have so its all consistent. At the moment we are developing differing concepts, tools, policies in isolation .
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 23:34, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Yes, structured data are far from perfect. I am sorry about it because I know their potential but they need to grow on a difficult soil and this slows down. We expected that, unfortunately. You can't just use them top-down, they need a bottom-up approach but we lack the right mentality of engaged users to make it grow.
If you want to change and improve something right now with metadata, try galleries before categories. They are quite useless at the moment, I see some users are updating them but they are really poor. It was very frequent to finf low resolution files still there, they are not standardized as well. Since they have limited structural role, working on that should be easier.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 17:20:31 CEST, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto:
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million images? And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think people relate to the Q numbers as well as names of things they know already. It's actually very much worse than that because these automated "Depicts" suggestions do not appear to know about Commons categories such that they suggest an obvious statement.
We all know it's maybe broken, but I don't see this as a fix, even if we run two systems in parallel until the structured data is (a) mature (b) sensible and (c) throughly reliable.
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here: https://www.oeclassic.com/
----- Original Message ----- From: Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: 18/05/2020 15:53:35 Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data, there's already bots running basic structured data that could be ramped up. and Having Wikidata game( https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/) thats instead focused on whats in a file & its description, that would capture more structured data including licensing. It'd help teach people more about including structured data 62million files is a lot to process so it'll take time but we can run competitions like 1lib1ref, encourage affiliates to focus on doing Commons structured data game as outreach events, this will teach people about licensing, and about what makes a good photograph because everyone knows a 30px by 30px photo is crap we can have structured data items less than 100,200,500px on the long edge.
Next step would be to look at the search function, add in an advance option with a few optional fields to fill in that searches the structured data. The advance search option could then sort by pixel size giving the biggest images first.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 22:28, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what
reuses
/ transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑
On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, < wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things
were
obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the
workflow.
There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects
like
"documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of
an
important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a
dimension
where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we
have
people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care
about
the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort
there
is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that
more
unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as
they
can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect
when
it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but
the
community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter < ymbalt@gmail.com> ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is
totally
unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations).
Of
course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I
can
imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But
if
one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a
minimum
and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with
me: I
only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time.
Also I
would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than
caring
about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you
want
to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and
of
course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other
contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They
quickly
lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an
Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab...
). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera
gear
I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the
project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is
something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <
benjaminikuta@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is
much
broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people
don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation
which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We
welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
-- GN.
*Power of Diverse Collaboration* *Sharing knowledge brings people together* Wikimania Bangkok 2021 August hosted by ESEAP
Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 what it's worth, I think that devoting WMF staff time and/or consultant time to developing a strategy for Commons and possibly another sister media project would be well worth considering.
I would likely support redirecting resources from the branding project to such a strategy project.
On Mon, 18 May 2020 at 15:53, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com wrote:
I think we could start to make the category structure obsolete and focus on structured data
I think that would be an excellent move; but first we need to stop and reverse the harmful "keyword stuffing" encouraged by the WMF:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data/Computer-aid...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/02#Misp...
You'll note my request on the latter page that the WMF provide evidence of consensus for their model of tagging has been repeatedly ignored; on 29 February this year I wrote - in response to a claim from a WMF staff member that "we're not ignoring anything":
"You have been called out for ignoring questions, by a number of people. You have only just - on 29 February - replied to some of the points I raised on this page on 11 February - nearly three weeks ago - even though I and others complained about your lack of response on 14 February. You have yet to respond to requests to show where there is consensus for the tool to operate, or to use depicts statements in the manner it is - including in the very post you reply to here. Most significantly, you have yet to answer requests to explain how the tool, or the invitation to tag, can be turned off."
My post was eventually archived, with no response to it.
To be fair, lack of iterative processes can happen on other platforms as well: think about the role of portals on some Wikipedias, or some notability guidelines that are far from defined and groups of users claim opposite concepts. Even Wikidata has these issues (surprisingly mostly ignored by some actve users there) but in that case they rarely define the platform as a general perception. Plus, soon or later, they have to focus on them somehow. The problem with Commons is that it gets easier to just ignore them and try somewhere else, instead of centralizing issues and solve them there, it acts the opposite way when real problems emerge from real life.
When I noticed that we could refine categorization of images from books I did not open the discussion on Commons, but on Wikisource. When I want to chat about how metadata can help I do with mostly Wikidata users, not Commons users, and so on. It should be mutlilingual but meta and Wikidata clearly do this better. What also is a problem is that copyright just... change... and again it's easier to handle it at level of national chapters than on Commons. So a platform that should be designed to handle a clearly iterative issue basically underperforms on that.
As the first truly multilingual content-related active platform, Commons was probably not designed efficiently to handle its role and over the years we could not fix it. It should be the one to do a lot of things instead it just handle badly sometimes what other platforms or affiliates cannot handle in the first place. You can't handle metadata? let's start from Wikidata. You can't handle copyright issue? national chapters. OTRS? Language-based channels also from affiliates and meta. GLAM? Affiliates. Ancient documents and epigraphs? Maybe Wkisource, sometimes. Problem with some NC files? Local Wikipedias.
is it just me or it is too big to fails, so we keep it because it has a strucutral role, but it basically just cannot catalyze efficiently new things.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 16:28:00 CEST, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com ha scritto:
Commons needs iterative workflows that tag problems and modify what reuses / transfusions are supported, rather than making everything a crude delete/keep decision. Else it will always struggle w scaling to these uses.
🌍🌏🌎🌑 On Mon., May 18, 2020, 9:48 a.m. Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l, wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
in the past "99% unproblematic" was true, because most of the things were obvious and standard (panorama of towns, ancient portraits), it's not nowadays. You can upload tons of unproblematic pictures because they are easy to find, but you don't need them really. So they mostly clutter the workflow. There are a lot of images of kittens that we can upload, good luck categorizing them. Of course, you can switch to very specific projects like "documenting all small rivers" but the core issue are also high-quality upload. And everything is potentially problematic there: the right of an important person to privacy, the right of the manufacturer of an instruments, how creative is the lighting of an object? if I upload an image of a town it's probably a very nice one, taken by a competent photographer who clearly show them on line as well. You are in a dimension where you need to study, learn, ask around, find a balance. Instead we have people acting randomly and superficially, because they do not care about the long-term effect of their actions.
This impacts the maintenance of course, because very specific issues requires sophisticated categories, processes and metadata. The effort there is quite high, you are always the first one to arrive. the first one to clean up,the first one to explain to a third party. If you add on that more unnecessary stress than required, people reduce this job as much as they can as a necessary balance. But that job has an important effect in the overall maintenance, so at a certain point you start to see the effect when it is not there.
It's not a big surprise, we tried to explain this fact for years, but the community is designed to ignore these aspects and encourage other work attitudes. It's just like that.
Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 15:28:51 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter ymbalt@gmail.com ha scritto:
To be fair, in most cases to use Commons for uploading files is totally unproblematic as soon as one has basic understanding of copyright. I am pretty sure 99% of my uploads can not be deleted (I had my files mass-nominated for deletion, once with the claim they are not mine, and once with the claim they are holiday photos and out of scope, but both cases admins were reasonably enough to speedy close the nominations). Of course there are always potentially problematic cases, for example I can imagine for one could start requiring "publication" dates for painting, which is copyright paranoia but some people take it seriously etc. But if one uploads something sufficiently far from the grey area it normally should be ok.
(I am still a Commons admin, but I reduced my admin activity to a minimum and I am not planning to increase the activity level).
Best Yaroslav
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:12 PM Ziko van Dijk zvandijk@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Alessandro, Thank you for your post and its insight. I recognized the same with me: I only make use of Wikimedia Commons in lessons if I have enough time. Also I would introduce it only to students with a solid knowledge of English.
Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org schrieb am Mo. 18. Mai 2020 um 13:08:
In the end, it's more like inducing order from other projects than caring about the order on Commons because there clearly can't be with people acting the way they do.
This is a great observation! And this phenomenon contributes to the on-going chaos, to the work-around-culture you need to adapt to if you want to make use of Wikimedia Commons. :-(
Kind regards Ziko
They are also not caring for it: if you spend your time starting
unnecessary deletion procedures instead of cleaning up categories or description, you obviously have your priority, so we also have ours.
About the main page, we need to focus more on media files IMHO, and of course search is complicated but I am sure metadata can improve it.
A. Il lunedì 18 maggio 2020, 11:33:46 CEST, Robert Myers < robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au> ha scritto:
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.
I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ra...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Ab... ). These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project, it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--
Robert Myers Secretary - Wikimedia Australia M: +61 400 670 288 robert.myers@wikimedia.org.au http://www.wikimedia.org.au
Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
My2c on the original question: Commons does a lot to discourage people from uploading to Commons. Everything from not allowing non-free formats (even automatically converted to free equivalents) to asking for cross-wiki uploads to be disabled and repeatedly proposing the same file for deletion is discouraging uploaders.
That's still anecdotical evidence I guess, but when one sees established users deliberately avoiding Commons because of these shortfalls one should probably take them seriously.
Pe duminică, 17 mai 2020, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com a scris:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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 be honest, I actively discourage newbies to edit but also to upload on Commons when they start. I prefer it when they focus on something else. If needed, I can find enough files because of my expertise and that's a decent starting point. Of course, I am active and soon or later uploading is a necessary step during many partnerships or classes, but I always assume and show the worst-case scenarios. You might think that such "cautious" attitude is not the wiki spirit, and I agree, but I know also that these users are not going to be helped, so it's mostly up to me to provide such support and I (like many other ones) have limited time. I also would like to offer to those potential long-term users a social ecosystem where they can grow and I am quite sure that at the moment Commons is not the best platform to do so.
it's a little bit more subtle than being "toxic"... it's dysfunctional, superficial, sloppy and unwarm. We have/had similar problems with other platforms... it's just human nature. There are groups of "active" users creating "bubbles" of realty where critical inputs from outside are dismissed as annoying or unworth. What is unique with Commons is that on other platforms this situation reduces/reduced contributions and, because of this reason, it does/did not create a huge backlog. Less involved people, less work induced by them. You get stagnation or hibernation if the situation is critical... but that's it. However, Commons just cannot end that way. On Commons the missing metadata, the generic categorizations, the partial descriptions, the necessary updates of copyright guidelines are just there, and similarly is the ongoing upload flow from other databases or initiatives because it is a nodal space. If people are more active on Wikivoyage, Wikisource or organizing Wiki Loves Monuments... this soon or later shows an effect and a backlog on this archive.
The community of Commons really needs a network of constantly involved users, but such users can always end up being motivated somewhere else where they feel that their needs are better understood. A.M.
Il mercoledì 20 maggio 2020, 18:49:06 CEST, Strainu strainu10@gmail.com ha scritto:
My2c on the original question: Commons does a lot to discourage people from uploading to Commons. Everything from not allowing non-free formats (even automatically converted to free equivalents) to asking for cross-wiki uploads to be disabled and repeatedly proposing the same file for deletion is discouraging uploaders.
That's still anecdotical evidence I guess, but when one sees established users deliberately avoiding Commons because of these shortfalls one should probably take them seriously.
Pe duminică, 17 mai 2020, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com a scris:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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, agreed. I also actively avoid using Commons sometimes, because the average life expectancy of a freely-licensed image is... shorter than one would hope.
If only for efficiency's sake, we absolutely need somewhere for newbies to upload images which " 1a) won't be deleted out of hand 1b) won't be deleted simply for lack of demonstration of notability or bulletproof (c) clearance, when it's reasonable to guess that the uploader may have such rights 1c) won't be deleted after being used on other projects, without an explicit takedown request (but may be hidden, as per d) 1d) conversely, won't be made easily accessible for transclusion on other projects until issues are resolved, or can easily be 'hidden' from transclusion by a templated concern, while not deleting the upload so that there is no longer a place to discuss + resolve
And we should also have 2a) a cross-wiki space for images used on any project, under whatever license, that don't fit current Commons policy 2b) ...that may require a more explicit method of calling the files to include them, so they can't be accidentally used in an inappropriate context.
1 and 2 don't have to be Commons itself. That would be a conceptually simple solution, but they could also be a separate project, with bots that migrate things to Commons once current C-policies are fully satisfied.
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 12:48 PM Strainu strainu10@gmail.com wrote:
My2c on the original question: Commons does a lot to discourage people from uploading to Commons. Everything from not allowing non-free formats (even automatically converted to free equivalents) to asking for cross-wiki uploads to be disabled and repeatedly proposing the same file for deletion is discouraging uploaders.
That's still anecdotical evidence I guess, but when one sees established users deliberately avoiding Commons because of these shortfalls one should probably take them seriously.
Pe duminică, 17 mai 2020, Benjamin Ikuta benjaminikuta@gmail.com a scris:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages 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
commons problem is a hostile admin environment. people without understnd for non UK/US ways of handling copyright law technical issues are important, as new users do not know how to do it. but once they overcome that heir pictures got deleted
masti
On 17.05.2020 05:04, Benjamin Ikuta wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Agree Masti
Its hard to for people to understand that Commons has a foot in two places,
- US Laws - because thats were its hosted - State of Origin - because that were its from.
using just cc-by with or without sa option is an very clear pathway to someone off with their own images..... then you move to PD(public domain) for US that pre 1920's locally that again varies for each country. If its PD in your country then there will be a license for it on Commons it'll specify what before what date, under what conditions.
Never ever consult a local lawyer they will always hedge their decision.
After that things get a lot more intuitive and require a lot deeper understanding and an acceptance you could be wrong especially when you need to rely on auto translators, even with UK/US/Canadian/Australian/South African/Classical english we all use words that look the same, even sound the same but can mean slightly different things.
Gnangaraa
On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 22:53, masti mastigm@gmail.com wrote:
commons problem is a hostile admin environment. people without understnd for non UK/US ways of handling copyright law technical issues are important, as new users do not know how to do it. but once they overcome that heir pictures got deleted
masti
On 17.05.2020 05:04, Benjamin Ikuta wrote:
Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
people don't contribute more broadly?
~Benjamin
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages 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