If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
I don't know the details of how Commons image-sharing works, but if this is possible, just make it a closed project (similar to the foundation wiki itself) since uploads will be limited to "official" images.
Comments?
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
That sounds like it would work.
____________________ Mitch D. (Greeves on all English Wikimedia projects)
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Lilewyn Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:47 PM To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
I don't know the details of how Commons image-sharing works, but if this is possible, just make it a closed project (similar to the foundation wiki itself) since uploads will be limited to "official" images.
Comments?
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 24/08/07, Lilewyn lilewyn@yahoo.ca wrote:
If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE THE FUNCTION OF COMMONS.
Sorry to shout. Commons accepts these images (despite the contradiction with our policy). WMF accepts us hosting them (despite the contradiction with the recent Licensing Resolution). If people want to push for any change to resolve these contradictions, it should be to ask WMF to release a statement stating the obvious, that it is acceptable for Commons to host non-free logos copyrighted by WMF. *Not* create a WMFLogos-Commons, *or* have the images deleted.
regards Brianna
On 8/24/07, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
On 24/08/07, Lilewyn lilewyn@yahoo.ca wrote:
If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a
similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
THAT SOUNDS EXACTLY LIKE THE FUNCTION OF COMMONS.
Sorry to shout. Commons accepts these images (despite the contradiction with our policy). WMF accepts us hosting them (despite the contradiction with the recent Licensing Resolution). If people want to push for any change to resolve these contradictions, it should be to ask WMF to release a statement stating the obvious, that it is acceptable for Commons to host non-free logos copyrighted by WMF. *Not* create a WMFLogos-Commons, *or* have the images deleted.
regards Brianna
I SUPPORT ABOVE USE OF CAPS.
I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use its own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos, and we have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new project just for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure that only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly pointless when WMF already has Commons.
On 8/24/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use its own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos, and we have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new project just for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure that only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly pointless when WMF already has Commons.
Creating a whole new project for WMF logos is caps-worthy silly. Creating a new one for non-WMF non-free logos is probably silly to, but it's MUCH better than forcing commons to take them.
Both things have been discussed here, so lets be clear about which ones were talking about.
On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use
its
own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos, and
we
have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new project
just
for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure
that
only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly pointless when WMF already has Commons.
Creating a whole new project for WMF logos is caps-worthy silly. Creating a new one for non-WMF non-free logos is probably silly to, but it's MUCH better than forcing commons to take them.
Both things have been discussed here, so lets be clear about which ones were talking about.
Yes, pardon me. "Creating a whole new project just for *WMF* logos". I was not speaking about non-free non-WMF logos. :)
Why would you need a Wiki for that? Or a community? Logo's are supposed to be static, so I guess this platform (server, whatever, i'm no techy, dont catch me on this :) ) could be non-editable.
I think the idea is not as weird as it sounds. There is no need for a Wiki-environment at all for the logo's, it would solve the contradiction and make sure that the images are not deleted by accident (as happened a while ago with the Wikibooks logo hosted on Commons, before the restoring of images possibility (auch) and as well with some other logo's which were forgotten to be replaced by the "superior" svg), but that is obviously not the main reason.
However, I do agree with brianna that it makes things maybe even more complicated. The category contains over 1500 images. Those are not all logo's of the 9 projects Wikimedia has with all localization. Maybe we have 500 projects, so still 1000 left... Of course that is caused by logo proposals and several sizes of the same image. Such a server would make these proposal contests impossible. (Is that bad? I don't know...) But the proposal is not "silly enough to use caps" if you think about it. It is a serious proposal, with serious argumentation, please look seriously at it then :) If you come to the conclusion it is not good, fine, but please be polite.
Anyway, although I think it is a serious and good proposal, I think as well that it brings more disadvantages then advantages compared with the current situation. But it is also the least worse scenario when we really would have to change the current way of acting.
BR, Lodewijk
2007/8/24, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com:
On 8/24/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/24/07, Ayelie ayelie.at.large@gmail.com wrote:
I also support the rest of Brianna's statement. WMF is allowed to use
its
own project for purposes such as hosting its own copyrighted logos,
and
we
have very obvious licenses for such cases. Creating a whole new
project
just
for logos, which would have to be monitored and administered to ensure
that
only valid logos are uploaded, etc., would be a pain and is utterly pointless when WMF already has Commons.
Creating a whole new project for WMF logos is caps-worthy silly. Creating a new one for non-WMF non-free logos is probably silly to, but it's MUCH better than forcing commons to take them.
Both things have been discussed here, so lets be clear about which ones were talking about.
Yes, pardon me. "Creating a whole new project just for *WMF* logos". I was not speaking about non-free non-WMF logos. :)
-- Ayelie ~Editor at Large _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 24/08/07, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Anyway, although I think it is a serious and good proposal, I think as well that it brings more disadvantages then advantages compared with the current situation. But it is also the least worse scenario when we really would have to change the current way of acting.
I don't quite understand why we do need to change the "current way of acting".
There is another factor which is not mentioned much. Many of these images are only marked {{CopyrightbyWikimedia}} because they contain some Wikimedia logo. For example some wikiprojects create their own little images and headers. There are "fun" images like the Wikipedia logo with a Santa hat.
Allowing these images is not a required thing by any licensing or even convenience argument, but IMO they are useful for community building, and I would see it if a pointless loss if it was decided that such images should not be allowed to exist on Commons.
regards Brianna
This entire conversation is making a mountain out of a molehill.
On 8/23/07, Lilewyn lilewyn@yahoo.ca wrote:
If Commons can have its image propagate to other wikis, could we have a similar wiki solely for Foundation images (project logo uploads and the like) that would not be acceptable to Commons?
I don't know the details of how Commons image-sharing works, but if this is possible, just make it a closed project (similar to the foundation wiki itself) since uploads will be limited to "official" images.
Comments?
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go toYahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org