Hey
So I had a great time handing out flyers for the Wiki takes Gouda promotion last weekend. We quickly learned to look for people with camera's or camera bags and target them with flyers. Since then I have been walking around and have noticed how many people walk around with a semi professional camera taking pictures of whatever.
How about having a business card size promotion leaflet which we can hand out to photographers, tourists or whatever in our countries. It would briefly explain that Wikimedia needs useable (and what usable means for us) pictures and that they can contribute with photographs. It would explain the free license and contain a link to a special URL helping them upload.
Not only could this result in a lot of new material (although we might want to add that we do not need the umpteenth picture of the white house or eiffel tower) but it would also create awareness amongst a group we have not typically targeted before…
(or has this already been done?)
Jan-Bart de Vreede (obviously representing just his own point of view here)
Hum... a Dutch WMF board of Trustees member promoting Gouda -> Conflict of interest. ;-)
More seriously, WMFr have a folder which explains what is Commons, how that works, that everyone can contribute, free licence, what you can or cannot upload, etc. ( http://www.wikimedia.fr/sites/default/files/Brochure_Wikimedia_Commons.pdf). For example, some of WMFr volonteers use it during their city photos huntings.
But we probably need something more Wikipedia oriented so people we met could easely understand that most of the photos they see on Wikipedia come from people like them who shoot when they visit a monument or a museum orsimply when they walk in the street. And they can easely become a WP photographer. Some of our volonteers have already this idea in mind. So we just have to be bold. :)
Thierry
2012/9/13 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hey
So I had a great time handing out flyers for the Wiki takes Gouda promotion last weekend. We quickly learned to look for people with camera's or camera bags and target them with flyers. Since then I have been walking around and have noticed how many people walk around with a semi professional camera taking pictures of whatever.
How about having a business card size promotion leaflet which we can hand out to photographers, tourists or whatever in our countries. It would briefly explain that Wikimedia needs useable (and what usable means for us) pictures and that they can contribute with photographs. It would explain the free license and contain a link to a special URL helping them upload.
Not only could this result in a lot of new material (although we might want to add that we do not need the umpteenth picture of the white house or eiffel tower) but it would also create awareness amongst a group we have not typically targeted before…
(or has this already been done?)
Jan-Bart de Vreede (obviously representing just his own point of view here) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Hey
I told no one I was a board member ;) Funny thing was they organised Wiki takes Gouda and then they asked me to join ;) But there were a lot of stroopwafels involved so it probably was way beyond conflict of interest but just corrupt ;)
I would claim that you should have this on business card size, so that you can always have them with you, because you find photographers everywhere.
Agreed that we might want to focus on wikipedia as a destination for the pictures ("please donate your pictures for use on wikipedia")
Jan-Bart
On 13 Sep 2012, at 10:23, Thierry Coudray thierry.coudray@wikimedia.fr wrote:
Hum... a Dutch WMF board of Trustees member promoting Gouda -> Conflict of interest. ;-)
More seriously, WMFr have a folder which explains what is Commons, how that works, that everyone can contribute, free licence, what you can or cannot upload, etc. ( http://www.wikimedia.fr/sites/default/files/Brochure_Wikimedia_Commons.pdf). For example, some of WMFr volonteers use it during their city photos huntings.
But we probably need something more Wikipedia oriented so people we met could easely understand that most of the photos they see on Wikipedia come from people like them who shoot when they visit a monument or a museum orsimply when they walk in the street. And they can easely become a WP photographer. Some of our volonteers have already this idea in mind. So we just have to be bold. :)
Thierry
2012/9/13 Jan-Bart de Vreede jdevreede@wikimedia.org
Hey
So I had a great time handing out flyers for the Wiki takes Gouda promotion last weekend. We quickly learned to look for people with camera's or camera bags and target them with flyers. Since then I have been walking around and have noticed how many people walk around with a semi professional camera taking pictures of whatever.
How about having a business card size promotion leaflet which we can hand out to photographers, tourists or whatever in our countries. It would briefly explain that Wikimedia needs useable (and what usable means for us) pictures and that they can contribute with photographs. It would explain the free license and contain a link to a special URL helping them upload.
Not only could this result in a lot of new material (although we might want to add that we do not need the umpteenth picture of the white house or eiffel tower) but it would also create awareness amongst a group we have not typically targeted before…
(or has this already been done?)
Jan-Bart de Vreede (obviously representing just his own point of view here) _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
-- Thierry Coudray Directeur exécutif Wikimédia France http://www.wikimedia.fr/ Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/ _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:48:28 +0200, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
Hey Agreed that we might want to focus on wikipedia as a destination for the pictures ("please donate your pictures for use on wikipedia")
Jan-Bart
Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that this is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or about "your town".
Cheers Yaroslav
On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.rujavascript:;> wrote:
Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that
this
is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or
about
"your town".
Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images got a placeholder - "No picture available! Can you donate one?" - but it was taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and partly due to technical problems.
I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale...
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk javascript:;
On 18 September 2012 14:00, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.rujavascript:;> wrote:
Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that
this
is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or
about
"your town".
Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images got a placeholder - "No picture available! Can you donate one?" - but it was taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and partly due to technical problems.
I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale...
My recollection is that that one of the key reasons the English Wikipedia community stopped using the image placeholders was the fact that we were receiving a very significant number of non-free images, including obviously commercial ones that people were claiming they owned, and we wound up deleting a lot of images that were 'donated'. I like the idea of inviting people to contribute images for *select* articles, but not *every* article without an image. But we should really make sure that we're getting some statistical information if we trial this again, to ensure that what we are getting is helpful and not a "copyright" timesink. It would be a shame to return to the old days when everything operated on the assumption that there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On many projects, that is no longer the case.
Risker/Anne
----- Original Message ----- From: "Risker" risker.wp@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:40 PM Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
...old days when everything operated on the assumption that there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On many projects, that is no longer the case.
O the irony!
Yes, this is definitely an issue. My recollection was that the "unwanted content" issue was seen as secondary to the debates about placement, but it's many years ago ;-)
Agree entirely on testing and having a sense of the cost-benefit ratio. One feature of the old system was that it predominantly went on BLPs - which are a magnet for easy "looks free" content like publicity photos. I wonder if the proportion of acceptable material would be higher if, eg, we trialled placeholders on towns and villages with no photos, or buildings?
- Andrew.
On Tuesday, 18 September 2012, Risker wrote:
On 18 September 2012 14:00, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukjavascript:;> wrote:
On 13 September 2012 12:10, Yaroslav M. Blanter <putevod@mccme.ru javascript:;javascript:;> wrote:
Btw it occurred to me that we never (to the best of my knowledge) tun a Wikipedia banner asking to donate pictures. Smth like to take a World Heritage site article without illustrations, or a town, and to say that
this
is easy to illustrate in several clicks - just to donate pictures. Or
about
"your town".
Enwiki used to have a system where articles about people without images
got
a placeholder - "No picture available! Can you donate one?" - but it was taken down a few years ago, partly due to community dislike of it and partly due to technical problems.
I believe a number of those technical issues have since been resolved, so it might be worth thinking about trialling it again on a small scale...
My recollection is that that one of the key reasons the English Wikipedia community stopped using the image placeholders was the fact that we were receiving a very significant number of non-free images, including obviously commercial ones that people were claiming they owned, and we wound up deleting a lot of images that were 'donated'. I like the idea of inviting people to contribute images for *select* articles, but not *every* article without an image. But we should really make sure that we're getting some statistical information if we trial this again, to ensure that what we are getting is helpful and not a "copyright" timesink. It would be a shame to return to the old days when everything operated on the assumption that there were always warm bodies around to clean up these kinds of messes. On many projects, that is no longer the case.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Andrew Gray, 19/09/2012 10:35:
Yes, this is definitely an issue. My recollection was that the "unwanted content" issue was seen as secondary to the debates about placement, but it's many years ago ;-)
Agree entirely on testing and having a sense of the cost-benefit ratio. One feature of the old system was that it predominantly went on BLPs - which are a magnet for easy "looks free" content like publicity photos. I wonder if the proportion of acceptable material would be higher if, eg, we trialled placeholders on towns and villages with no photos, or buildings?
It's already somehow happening for Wiki Loves Monuments USA, if I remember correctly (although technically they're _absolutely not_ image placeholders). The UploadWizard is designed to educate users about copyright issues: I don't know if someone measured the percentage of copyvios and related errors compared to normal uplod, but it might be a solution.
Nemo
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org