One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
I completely agree. Anonymity is not equal to the right to be uncontactable everafter.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images like that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree. Anonymity is not equal to the right to be uncontactable everafter.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Great idea.
Fran
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 20:21 +0100, Will "Sceptre" Noble wrote:
And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images like that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree. Anonymity is not equal to the right to be uncontactable everafter.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Yes, count me in.
----- ĐŃŃ ĐŸĐŽĐœĐŸĐ” ŃĐŸĐŸĐ±ŃĐ”ĐœĐžĐ” ----- ĐŃ: "Francis Tyers" spectre@ivixor.net ĐĐŸĐŒŃ: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org ĐŃĐżŃĐ°ĐČĐ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ: 28 ĐžŃĐœŃ 2006 Đł. 22:24 ĐąĐ”ĐŒĐ°: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Require confirmed email address to upload images?
Great idea.
Fran
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 20:21 +0100, Will "Sceptre" Noble wrote:
And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images
like
that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree. Anonymity is not equal to the right to be uncontactable everafter.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account,
maybe
only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them
what
the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to
contact
the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to
get
in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
I suppose it does open up the question of having to have an e-mail address to just simply register an account, as opposed to just having to have one to upload images. Especially when there was a debate going on about reusing accounts which have been inactive, if one had to register with a valid e-mail address then a warning e-mail could be sent out to inactive accounts, for example. Of course that does go against the nature of Wikipedia slightly, in some people's views. However, it is something worth considering as the rate of new users keeps on increasing.
Oliver
On 6/28/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images like that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree. Anonymity is not equal to the right to be uncontactable everafter.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Disagree with this. People shouldn't have to have an email address to register, just to upload images.
Agree with Tomasz that it would be good if anons could create articles.
Fran
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 20:27 +0100, Oliver Coddington wrote:
I suppose it does open up the question of having to have an e-mail address to just simply register an account, as opposed to just having to have one to upload images. Especially when there was a debate going on about reusing accounts which have been inactive, if one had to register with a valid e-mail address then a warning e-mail could be sent out to inactive accounts, for example. Of course that does go against the nature of Wikipedia slightly, in some people's views. However, it is something worth considering as the rate of new users keeps on increasing.
Oliver
On 6/28/06, Will Sceptre Noble tintower@tintower.tk wrote:
And it'd cut down on most of the fair-use with no rationale and images like that. (of course, there may be some serial offenders even after that)
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I completely agree. Anonymity is not equal to the right to be uncontactable everafter.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- Brad Patrick General Counsel & Interim Executive Director Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. bradp.wmf@gmail.com 727-231-0101 _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
-- -Sceptre http://tintower.co.uk _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington olivercoddington@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose it does open up the question of having to have an e-mail address to just simply register an account, as opposed to just having to have one to upload images. Especially when there was a debate going on about reusing accounts which have been inactive, if one had to register with a valid e-mail address then a warning e-mail could be sent out to inactive accounts, for example. Of course that does go against the nature of Wikipedia slightly, in some people's views. However, it is something worth considering as the rate of new users keeps on increasing.
Of course, were we to do this more people would simply edit without an account. You already are not able to upload without an account. But I think the more important consideration is this, how often do we need to email a few-edit account... vary rarely, perhaps only once to tell them that their account is expiring. Drive by image uploaders, on the other hand, provide incomplete copyright information in a majority of cases.
It's not reasonable to expect new users even uploading ones to be experts at our requirements, even when we make a strong effort to inform people prior to upload. As such I support this feature.
I would be in favour of the idea, and it seems to be a gradual progression of the way Wikipedia is developing (which obviously is open to debate about whether it is the right way). I think that the ends justify the mean in this case, and with the problems we do have on images on Wikipedia relating to copyright info it is important to be able to contact uploaders, as we may well be able to 'save' a significant number of images.
Whether all new users should have to register e-mail addresses is a further debate, but seems the next logical step. Again there are obviously pros and cons to such a thing, and I think if such a system were ever introduced you would have to allow only registered users to edit Wikipedia (which in the present climate is never going to occur).
The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia to become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce the 'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?
Oliver
On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington olivercoddington@gmail.com wrote:
I suppose it does open up the question of having to have an e-mail
address
to just simply register an account, as opposed to just having to have
one to
upload images. Especially when there was a debate going on about reusing accounts which have been inactive, if one had to register with a valid e-mail address then a warning e-mail could be sent out to inactive
accounts,
for example. Of course that does go against the nature of Wikipedia slightly, in some people's views. However, it is something worth
considering
as the rate of new users keeps on increasing.
Of course, were we to do this more people would simply edit without an account. You already are not able to upload without an account. But I think the more important consideration is this, how often do we need to email a few-edit account... vary rarely, perhaps only once to tell them that their account is expiring. Drive by image uploaders, on the other hand, provide incomplete copyright information in a majority of cases.
It's not reasonable to expect new users even uploading ones to be experts at our requirements, even when we make a strong effort to inform people prior to upload. As such I support this feature. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Whether all new users should have to register e-mail addresses is a further debate, but seems the next logical step. Again there are obviously pros and cons to such a thing, and I think if such a system were ever introduced you would have to allow only registered users to edit Wikipedia (which in the present climate is never going to occur).
I would be strongly opposed to this.
Fran
On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington olivercoddington@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia to become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce the 'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?
The words free and freedom are really not what you want. Even their conventional meaning is poorly matched, and these words are so overloaded in our community.
I'd call what you're referring to the practice of promiscuous participation without organized review, though perhaps someone has a more succinct way of putting it.
Because we are so often confronted with hard problems which are, at least in part, related to that model, there is often talk about measures that move away from that model. But all we've ever really had is talk. Even things like inhibiting new articles from the unregistered users does not materially limit promiscuous participation, unless we wish to define the requirement of hitting 'edit this page' and 'submit' as material limits on participation.
On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington olivercoddington@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia to become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce the 'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?
BTW, you are part of this discussion because you gave an email address or what? I simply do not undertsand what specifying an email address has in common with freedom.... On the opposite, it helps people who uploaded files in giving them the right to explain what they did, instead of remaining helplessly in the hands of us allmighty admins, as it the case now. Nothing that gives people menas for them to voice their opinions can be considered a limitation. Or is it limiting the admin's power that is feared here? Really, I don't understand...
BĂšrto
Hi,sorry let me perhaps rephrase what I said. The issue of 'freedom' relates to the free and open nature of Wikipedia, i.e. that anyone can edit it. If we start introducing the requirement that one needs to have an e-mail address to do certain things (in this case upload pictures) then part of this 'freedom', this open nature in impinged. I'm not saying that I disagree with requiring people to have to provide e-mail addresses to upload pictures, indeed I am in favour, but it does take us further away from the original ideal of Wikipedia.
I am then merely commenting that the next step along the line may well be stopping unregistered users from editing and having to have an e-mail address to register an account. I mean I can never see that happening, well nowhere near the present time, but the issue that then raises is how open (how free) is Wikipedia? Would having to provide an e-mail address and having to register reduce the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia, my initial reaction would be yes. Would having such a system put off potential new editors, again I think the answer may well be yes, and so this is where the problem can lie in such a system, and why the open nature of Wikipedia is so often fought for and defended.
Do I think the ends justify the meanas with having to make people provide e-mail addresses to upload photos? Yes I do, and I feel that such a system may lead to more images actually staying on Wikipedia, and that surely is an advantage, as nobody like having to delete images when we simply don't know about their copyright status.
Oliver
On 6/28/06, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net wrote:
On 6/28/06, Oliver Coddington olivercoddington@gmail.com wrote: [snip]
The question ultimately is how far are we willing to allow Wikipedia
to
become less 'free' and whether we think any measure that does reduce
the
'freedom' on Wikipedia is worth it?
BTW, you are part of this discussion because you gave an email address or what? I simply do not undertsand what specifying an email address has in common with freedom.... On the opposite, it helps people who uploaded files in giving them the right to explain what they did, instead of remaining helplessly in the hands of us allmighty admins, as it the case now. Nothing that gives people menas for them to voice their opinions can be considered a limitation. Or is it limiting the admin's power that is feared here? Really, I don't understand...
BĂšrto
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 28/06/06, Oliver Coddington olivercoddington@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,sorry let me perhaps rephrase what I said. The issue of 'freedom' relates to the free and open nature of Wikipedia, i.e. that anyone can edit it. If we start introducing the requirement that one needs to have an e-mail address to do certain things (in this case upload pictures) then part of this 'freedom', this open nature in impinged. I'm not saying that I disagree with requiring people to have to provide e-mail addresses to upload pictures, indeed I am in favour, but it does take us further away from the original ideal of Wikipedia.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record... the goal of the project is to provide people with a free encyclopedia. "Anyone can edit" is a tool to achieve that goal.
Hi!
is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with the level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
BĂšrto
Hi Berto,
yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
Ciao, Sabine
Berto schrieb:
Hi!
is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with the level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
BĂšrto
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
WiktionaryZ do use a diffrent set of babel-templates then most Wikipedias.
2006/6/29, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Hi Berto,
yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
Ciao, Sabine
Berto schrieb:
Hi!
is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
the
level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
BĂšrto
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, WiktionaryZ uses the ISO-639-3 language codes to identify languages. The codes currently in use in the Wikimedia Foundation projects are ambiguous and often have no precise meaning except within the Wikimedia Foundation. By standardising on the ISO-639-3 we have divorced the project codes from the language codes. This is for WiktionaryZ not a problem as it its data will be usable for people from all languages. Thanks, GerardM
PS both Berto and Sabine are aware of this.. :)
Joakim Larsson wrote:
WiktionaryZ do use a diffrent set of babel-templates then most Wikipedias.
2006/6/29, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Hi Berto,
yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
Ciao, Sabine
Berto schrieb:
Hi!
is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
the
level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
BĂšrto
Yes, it's much wider. Why should I import an older tool version, since I am to start now? BĂšrto
----- ĐŃŃ ĐŸĐŽĐœĐŸĐ” ŃĐŸĐŸĐ±ŃĐ”ĐœĐžĐ” ----- ĐŃ: "Joakim Larsson" to.joakim@gmail.com ĐĐŸĐŒŃ: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org ĐŃĐżŃĐ°ĐČĐ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ: 29 ĐžŃĐœŃ 2006 Đł. 16:14 ĐąĐ”ĐŒĐ°: Re: [Wikipedia-l] import babel templates, how-to
WiktionaryZ do use a diffrent set of babel-templates then most Wikipedias.
2006/6/29, Sabine Cretella sabine_cretella@yahoo.it:
Hi Berto,
yes, I already thought about it. I need all the templates downloaded in a file (did/do not have time right now to do it, but I wanted to do the same) - then I can easily use the bot to upload them.
Ciao, Sabine
Berto schrieb:
Hi!
is there anyway to import babel templates? (say from wiktionaryZ, with
the
level-5 convention, too). They do not need any translation at all, so it looks pretty stupid to do it manually.
BĂšrto
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
2006/6/29, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net:
Yes, it's much wider. Why should I import an older tool version, since I am to start now? BĂšrto
My tought was that maybe becuse it shall be easy to ad and understand over all wikis. But since you are aware of this, I say no more.
[[sv:User:Grön]]
AFAIK, it should be a transparent move for all users. If you are aware of any differences pls tell me, so I can have the users know that they are going to chenge some of their usual behaviours. All I know so far is that there also is an XXX-5 level for people making a professional use of a language.
BĂšrto
----- ĐŃŃ ĐŸĐŽĐœĐŸĐ” ŃĐŸĐŸĐ±ŃĐ”ĐœĐžĐ” ----- ĐŃ: "Joakim Larsson" to.joakim@gmail.com ĐĐŸĐŒŃ: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org ĐŃĐżŃĐ°ĐČĐ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ: 29 ĐžŃĐœŃ 2006 Đł. 16:46 ĐąĐ”ĐŒĐ°: Re: [Wikipedia-l] import babel templates, how-to
2006/6/29, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net:
Yes, it's much wider. Why should I import an older tool version, since I am to start now? BĂšrto
My tought was that maybe becuse it shall be easy to ad and understand over all wikis. But since you are aware of this, I say no more.
[[sv:User:Grön]] _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Well, we know about the differences in that German for example is not "de" but "deu". There are no problems with interwiki-links, so it does not really matter who uses what. The complete upload file of all Babel-templates (iso 639-3) is being created (I did almost half of it) and is free for anyone to use. I am not going the XML way, but create it in such a way that it can be uploaded with the pywikipedia bot - so no special upload rights are needed.
Therefore it only means that we are using the latest available set of the ISO-639 series, ISO-639-3
It is going to be used also for wikis outside the foundation - therefore it makes sense to have some kind of Babel-standard and no ambiguous codes. At the time when most wikipedias were created with ISO 639-2 codes that seemed enough - today things are different.
Then there is that other problem that some wikipedias use codes that are not ISO-639-3 and even worse, there is at least one that uses a code that in ISO 639-3 is defined with another language (don't know if that was changed in the meanwhile) - but you can find posts on that theme from some weeks ago in the archive.
It makes sense therefore to separate language codes from Wikipedia codes.
Ciao, Sabine
Berto schrieb:
AFAIK, it should be a transparent move for all users. If you are aware of any differences pls tell me, so I can have the users know that they are going to chenge some of their usual behaviours. All I know so far is that there also is an XXX-5 level for people making a professional use of a language.
BĂšrto
----- ĐŃŃ ĐŸĐŽĐœĐŸĐ” ŃĐŸĐŸĐ±ŃĐ”ĐœĐžĐ” ----- ĐŃ: "Joakim Larsson" to.joakim@gmail.com ĐĐŸĐŒŃ: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org ĐŃĐżŃĐ°ĐČĐ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ: 29 ĐžŃĐœŃ 2006 Đł. 16:46 ĐąĐ”ĐŒĐ°: Re: [Wikipedia-l] import babel templates, how-to
2006/6/29, Berto albertoserra@ukr.net:
Yes, it's much wider. Why should I import an older tool version, since I am to start now? BĂšrto
My tought was that maybe becuse it shall be easy to ad and understand over all wikis. But since you are aware of this, I say no more.
[[sv:User:Grön]]
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale! http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
I think if such a system were ever introduced you would have to allow only registered users to edit Wikipedia
It's not the same thing. I cannot think of that many reasons for admins to email a text editor. If something is wrong on a text I just edit it. But you don't expect admins to edit pics on photoshop, do you? Besides, it would not really solve the copvio problem.
BĂšrto
2006/6/28, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
Gread idea - we have same problem on pl.wiki :)
AJF/WarX
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
A very strong objection from me.
The Wikipedia is gradually getting less and less open and it's really becoming annoying. Already too many common actions require a registration. On English Wikipedia one cannot even create an article without a registration (as if registration meant anything), what in my opinion is a huge blow to our former openness.
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
Explain how an unregistered "drive by" editor should be afforded more respect than someone who participates, maintains a talk page, and has an email available. I don't understand your cultural perspective that places a higher degree of importance on this than the other way around.
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
A very strong objection from me.
The Wikipedia is gradually getting less and less open and it's really becoming annoying. Already too many common actions require a registration. On English Wikipedia one cannot even create an article without a registration (as if registration meant anything), what in my opinion is a huge blow to our former openness.
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Brad Patrick wrote:
Explain how an unregistered "drive by" editor should be afforded more respect than someone who participates, maintains a talk page, and has an email available. I don't understand your cultural perspective that places a higher degree of importance on this than the other way around.
Tomasz never said this. He said anonymous users should "have all options available", not that they should have "more" than registered users. I don't know if you have a problem with reading what others write, or if you are pushing some political agenda, but the way you communicate is becoming irritating.
On 6/29/06, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Tomasz never said this. He said anonymous users should "have all options available", not that they should have "more" than registered users. I don't know if you have a problem with reading what others write, or if you are pushing some political agenda, but the way you communicate is becoming irritating.
It is to afford them more respect when we contort our policy to minimize effort for them while maximizing the effort for our more established editors.
I have a hard time listening to people who make loud an emotional complaints about exclusion when we talk about registration, because it's patently untrue. Registration excludes no one. If you want to argue on the basis of more complicated editing/uploading dissuading new people from discovering the joy of contributing then I can follow that argument.. But to claim that we're discussion a policy of exclusion? Thats just trolling.
We should discontinue using the word 'anonymous' for non-registered users, because they are among the least anonymous users on the system.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/29/06, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
Tomasz never said this. He said anonymous users should "have all options available", not that they should have "more" than registered users. I don't know if you have a problem with reading what others write, or if you are pushing some political agenda, but the way you communicate is becoming irritating.
It is to afford them more respect when we contort our policy to minimize effort for them while maximizing the effort for our more established editors.
I have a hard time listening to people who make loud an emotional complaints about exclusion when we talk about registration, because it's patently untrue. Registration excludes no one. If you want to argue on the basis of more complicated editing/uploading dissuading new people from discovering the joy of contributing then I can follow that argument.. But to claim that we're discussion a policy of exclusion? Thats just trolling.
We should discontinue using the word 'anonymous' for non-registered users, because they are among the least anonymous users on the system.
Hoi, When registration excludes no-one it means that those people that do have a reason not to register an e-mail address are excluded. There are such people. It is fine for you not to see the arguments of others, you paint yourself in a corner however by calling these other names. It does not make your argument sympathetic, far from it, it hurts your cause.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/29/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I have a hard time listening to people who make loud an emotional complaints about exclusion when we talk about registration, because it's patently untrue. Registration excludes no one. If you want to argue on the basis of more complicated editing/uploading dissuading new people from discovering the joy of contributing then I can follow that argument.. But to claim that we're discussion a policy of exclusion? Thats just trolling.
It's important noting the philosophy behind a change like the one proposed. Many forums require registration and e-mail confirmation to discourage spam and abuse. This is not the philosophy of the wiki, where you typically develop complex measures of surveillance, prevention and intervention rather than erecting barriers to entry.
But the change is not to proposed to make it harder to upload. The change is proposed to make it easier to contact uploaders, which is a legitimate concern. If this becomes an opt-in measure for each wiki community (each of which may have its own reasons for wanting or not wanting it), I really see no compelling reason against it.
One could make the argument (and I believe Kat did) that it is harsher to uploaders to just delete their pictures without asking. The idea here is not to _exclude_ people. The idea is to be nice to them. But I think it's OK for Commons to be "harsh", because it follows a very strict standard of freedom and it's important for people to learn that. I'm not sure if the rest of the Commons community will agree, but essentially, I think there needs to be a consensus-oriented discussion on each wiki before a feature like this is activated.
Erik
Hoi, It is all well and good for a project to insist on a policy. However there are two problems with doing it this way for the Commons project: * The insistence of the Commons community that they are a law onto themselves * The Commons serves as a resource to all projects whereby its policies directly affect ALL other projects
The consequence of this is that arguments that are derived from the Commons community are made irrelevant because the arguments from other projects are not heard either (deliberately).
If you want to be nice, you have to listen to the arguments of others. In the past it was made quite clear that the Commons community does not want to do that.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/29/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
I have a hard time listening to people who make loud an emotional complaints about exclusion when we talk about registration, because it's patently untrue. Registration excludes no one. If you want to argue on the basis of more complicated editing/uploading dissuading new people from discovering the joy of contributing then I can follow that argument.. But to claim that we're discussion a policy of exclusion? Thats just trolling.
It's important noting the philosophy behind a change like the one proposed. Many forums require registration and e-mail confirmation to discourage spam and abuse. This is not the philosophy of the wiki, where you typically develop complex measures of surveillance, prevention and intervention rather than erecting barriers to entry.
But the change is not to proposed to make it harder to upload. The change is proposed to make it easier to contact uploaders, which is a legitimate concern. If this becomes an opt-in measure for each wiki community (each of which may have its own reasons for wanting or not wanting it), I really see no compelling reason against it.
One could make the argument (and I believe Kat did) that it is harsher to uploaders to just delete their pictures without asking. The idea here is not to _exclude_ people. The idea is to be nice to them. But I think it's OK for Commons to be "harsh", because it follows a very strict standard of freedom and it's important for people to learn that. I'm not sure if the rest of the Commons community will agree, but essentially, I think there needs to be a consensus-oriented discussion on each wiki before a feature like this is activated.
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 6/29/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to be nice, you have to listen to the arguments of others.
Absolutely. But being nice is a matter of cooperation as well :-). I cannot praise Duesentrieb enough for his work on CommonsTicker, which is really an excellent tool for Commons and local wikis to work together. Magnus' tools are also great in bringing the projects closer together.
Certainly, if there is a strong argument that Commons should use e-mail confirmation from people outside Commons, that should be heard and given considerable weight.
It is also true, in general, that there are a lot of people who get pissed when we delete images they upload to Commons, whether or not we notify them. And of course they're right to be pissed when: - we delete an image that is 20 years old and has no commercial value - we delete a scan from a scientific journal, or a taxpayer-funded report - we have to delete some images in accordance with peculiar national copyright laws.
They are right to be angry and frustrated by the extent to which our culture has become monopolized and commoditized. And while it is understandable that they turn their anger and frustration against the project where these unjust laws are enforced, we need to work together in turning it against the lawmakers and the lobbyists that have passed them in the first place. To what extent Wikimedia can become political in these matters, I do not know. But it certainly should facilitate political change and direct its tremendous community to the right organizations.
I think a lot of tension we have is not the result of anything done by Commons, but a result of the fundamental unfairness and imbalance in international copyright law.
Erik
On 6/29/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to be nice, you have to listen to the arguments of others.
Absolutely. But being nice is a matter of cooperation as well :-). I cannot praise Duesentrieb enough for his work on CommonsTicker, which is really an excellent tool for Commons and local wikis to work together. Magnus' tools are also great in bringing the projects closer together.
Hoi, When you use tools in stead of communication I agree, the point is that the Commons community has in the past deliberately, pointedly and repeatedly indicated that they are not interested in informing and discussing proposed change to the Commons policies prior to aking that change
Yes, do use all the tools available to you to make the process a process of cooperation. But when policies are expliclitly enforced without prior consultations you are wrong to call it cooperation because you ask for operation.
Thanks, GerardM
PS I only get pissed when I drink to much alcohol
Certainly, if there is a strong argument that Commons should use e-mail confirmation from people outside Commons, that should be heard and given considerable weight.
It is also true, in general, that there are a lot of people who get pissed when we delete images they upload to Commons, whether or not we notify them. And of course they're right to be pissed when:
- we delete an image that is 20 years old and has no commercial value
- we delete a scan from a scientific journal, or a taxpayer-funded report
- we have to delete some images in accordance with peculiar national
copyright laws.
They are right to be angry and frustrated by the extent to which our culture has become monopolized and commoditized. And while it is understandable that they turn their anger and frustration against the project where these unjust laws are enforced, we need to work together in turning it against the lawmakers and the lobbyists that have passed them in the first place. To what extent Wikimedia can become political in these matters, I do not know. But it certainly should facilitate political change and direct its tremendous community to the right organizations.
I think a lot of tension we have is not the result of anything done by Commons, but a result of the fundamental unfairness and imbalance in international copyright law.
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 6/29/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you use tools in stead of communication I agree, the point is that the Commons community has in the past deliberately, pointedly and repeatedly indicated that they are not interested in informing and discussing proposed change to the Commons policies prior to aking that change
The right place to discuss Commons policy in a multilingual community with over 600 wikis are the Commons forums and mailing list. Everyone is free to participate there. If policy is not discussed in the right places _on_ Commons, then this is a failing of the Commons community. But cooperation also means participation.
Imagine that we didn't have separate wikis, and only a single big one. Surely the right place to discuss image policy would be the pages about image policy? The separation of Commons and other projects is essentially one that only exists in our heads, with the exception of separate accounts and some minor user interface issues. Commons is simply the section of the Wikimedia community that deals with multimedia. And of course these people develop policies and practices around multimedia. If you disagree with these policies and practices, _get involved_.
Virtually all the active members of the Commons community also have a "home wiki" where they are active. It is not some separate entity. It is a subset of the Wikimedia community.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
On 6/29/06, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you use tools in stead of communication I agree, the point is that the Commons community has in the past deliberately, pointedly and repeatedly indicated that they are not interested in informing and discussing proposed change to the Commons policies prior to aking that change
The right place to discuss Commons policy in a multilingual community with over 600 wikis are the Commons forums and mailing list. Everyone is free to participate there. If policy is not discussed in the right places _on_ Commons, then this is a failing of the Commons community. But cooperation also means participation.
Imagine that we didn't have separate wikis, and only a single big one. Surely the right place to discuss image policy would be the pages about image policy? The separation of Commons and other projects is essentially one that only exists in our heads, with the exception of separate accounts and some minor user interface issues. Commons is simply the section of the Wikimedia community that deals with multimedia. And of course these people develop policies and practices around multimedia. If you disagree with these policies and practices, _get involved_.
Virtually all the active members of the Commons community also have a "home wiki" where they are active. It is not some separate entity. It is a subset of the Wikimedia community.
Erik
Hoi, With over 13.000 edits to my name on Commons and with a user ID of 25, you cannot say that I am not involved. I am also (for practical reasons) an admin at Commons.
I disagree strongly that the Commons forums and mailing list are the _only_ and the _only_right_ place to discuss policies about digital media policies. The reason is that Commons is not a project like all the others. Commons is a project that provides a _service_ to all the other projects. People have been ambushed in the past by really stupid policy changes and this has lost the Commons community a massive amount of support. It is also incorrect to suggest that the commons community is "the WMF community that deals with Multimedia". There are many more people that deals with multimedia.
In previous e-mails about Commons it was made abundantly clear that many in its community consider the people outside their coterie should not be involved in the Commons policies. It is for this lack of social grace that I lost my faith in the Commons community. It does its own thing and I do not trust it to do right any more. This is also because I have seen enough examples that can serve as proof to support me in this position.
I wish it was true that Commons were not some separate entity. It is because of their behaving like a separate entity that many people turned away from Commons.
Thanks, GerardM
Gerard,
this is getting very off-topic and we should move it somewhere else if we want to continue the discussion :-). We should probably discuss this privately at some point because I'm not sure what cases of Commons users acting arrogantly in the way you describe it you're referring to. Perhaps we should organize a cross-project meeting between Commons users and those of other wikis, so that people can express and share their concerns openly.
Erik
Hi!
- The insistence of the Commons community that they are a law onto
themselves
- The Commons serves as a resource to all projects whereby its
policies directly affect ALL other projects
This is 100% true. Commons cannot be "the law" for the simple reason that it's not them writing copyright laws. It's countries' lawmakers in instead. So no matter how compliant to law we decide to be, it's not the people at commons who may write them or enforce them.
WmF will never (nobody in his mind would) accept the responsibility for stored content. We all know what happened to sites that were held responsible for copvios. But as long as it's the user being responsible as the author of the upload, he cannot be requested to conform to a policy from commons, because this is *very* deceptive (let alone the deletionist trend). I do appreciate the monumental amount of work that people @ commons do to give us all resources, yet a person maybe induced to think that he/she is not violating any law (because commons said it's okay), and later get in trouble with the "real law", that does not even know about the very existence of commons' policies. This IS a problem.
I do acknowledge that a much clearer solution for copyright problems must be found, though. In the meantime, as a simple "user @ commons" I would really appreciate a better catalogation system, instead of a stricter copy check, if I was to make a choice myself. Yet, the problem with copvios exists... and it's potentially risky for the whole community, so it must be addressed, somehow. But since we all share the consequences, we should all share the decisions.
It's a heavy step. We all are overloaded as things are, and caring about commons is another HUGE mark in our to-do lists. If commons went their own way it's probably even because this suited most of the community, as we could simply use them, and eventually insult them if and when we did not like what they did. So asking commons to share their policies also means asking us all to share our time and work with them...
As per freedom... I honestly feel doubtful.
1) it's 100% true that *any* new step in an online process induces a loss in traffic. 2) I really believe that much of the current deletions are simply due to the absence of a contact that may explain the real copy situation. 3) I acknowledge that there are people (maybe only minorities, so what? It's still traffic we loose) that really do not want (or cannot) register an email address. 4) I think that people who see their files deleted are possibly going to develop a vision of commons as "the copyright cops", instead of looking at them as a resource provider.
Pls take the following as a "what if" case for study, because I am still personally quite far from understanding what I'd consider the best solution.
What if: 1) we add an explanation in the login process, telling people that if they have no email stated they have an added 80% of having their files losts in commons, because of copy laws? 2) we add the same box on the upload pages for all users who do uploads without having a registered email?
After all, people who do not have an email are already unable to use a number of email-based features. This would end up in making marketing for commons (everybody would be aware of their existence since their early steps in a wiki), while not stopping a man from taking his risk, if he feels to do so.
Just an early thought. Maybe someone can elaborate better, if the idea is worth being elaborated.
BĂšrto
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them. Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know how to reach them.
Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
-Kat
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
Gaining nothing? [...] Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
The cost is anything but small and from the experience with licencing issues on Wikipedia I've had so far I'd guess the gain is purely theoretical.
* It is a privacy problem
* It is a serious loss of openness
* Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration ** Many people do not even have an email address. ** Or they have one, but won't give it for fear of spam. ** Or they won't register, because in bad cases it takes like 30 minutes to get the confirmation procedure completed (email is slow!) ** Or the confirmation email gets lost on one of the spam filters. ** and so on.
* Even if people do register, it won't be possible to contact most of them: ** Most normal people who would get such an email, wouldn't understand what the heck is this all licencing thing about or simply wouldn't care. About the only people who get the licencing are Wikipedians and Open Source geeks. And they do not need compulsory email confirmation. ** People tend to automatically delete all emails from people they don't know as spam. So even if the email gets through it's likely to get ignored.** Many people have special email addresses for all the registrations that they never actually read *** Like I never do compulsory registrations using anything else than spambob ** People are switching email addresses all the time. Half-life of valid email address is very short.
So we have a huge pile of problems against a theory that some users can be contacted by email and correct the licencing. It simple can't work.
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
Gaining nothing? [...] Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
The cost is anything but small and from the experience with licencing issues on Wikipedia I've had so far I'd guess the gain is purely theoretical.
It is a privacy problem
It is a serious loss of openness
Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
They SHOULDN'T be uploading images if they won't even give us their email, because then we have no way of verifying their image upload tags whatsoever. Many images are released as GFDL-self, PD-self, whatever, and without even an email address to verify any of that how can the system possibly work?
- Even if people do register, it won't be possible to contact most of them:
** Most normal people who would get such an email, wouldn't understand what the heck is this all licencing thing about or simply wouldn't care. About the only people who get the licencing are Wikipedians and Open Source geeks. And they do not need compulsory email confirmation. ** People tend to automatically delete all emails from people they don't know as spam. So even if the email gets through it's likely to get ignored.** Many people have special email addresses for all the registrations that they never actually read *** Like I never do compulsory registrations using anything else than spambob ** People are switching email addresses all the time. Half-life of valid email address is very short.
None of the "concerns" you just brought up are valid.
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
The cost is anything but small and from the experience with licencing issues on Wikipedia I've had so far I'd guess the gain is purely theoretical.
My experiences suggest otherwise. It is frustrating to try to contact a user who has not provided an address and who is no longer actively editing.
- It is a privacy problem
How? You don't have to use your primary email address, or one that identifies you; there are plenty of anonymous mail services.
- It is a serious loss of openness
I disagree; it's a small hurdle, and does not place any additional restrictions on who can participate (if you can edit Wikipedia, you can register a free email account).
- Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
** Many people do not even have an email address. ** Or they have one, but won't give it for fear of spam. ** Or they won't register, because in bad cases it takes like 30 minutes to get the confirmation procedure completed (email is slow!) ** Or the confirmation email gets lost on one of the spam filters. ** and so on.
- Even if people do register, it won't be possible to contact most of them:
** Most normal people who would get such an email, wouldn't understand what the heck is this all licencing thing about or simply wouldn't care. About the only people who get the licencing are Wikipedians and Open Source geeks. And they do not need compulsory email confirmation.
I'm not talking about requiring for all edits (and I don't agree with doing so, nor do I agree with the experiment on en: about restricting article creation to logged-in users). Only for those who wish to upload images.
And the point of being able to contact them is for people who *do* get the licensing to be able to ask. The uploader doesn't have to care, but it is necessary that they agree to the terms, or we cannot use their media. If we can't verify that, then we can't use what they've done, and so in effect they are blocked from participating anyway.
** People tend to automatically delete all emails from people they don't know as spam. So even if the email gets through it's likely to get ignored.
** Many people have special email addresses for all the
registrations that they never actually read *** Like I never do compulsory registrations using anything else than spambob ** People are switching email addresses all the time. Half-life of valid email address is very short.
Then those people will not benefit, but this is not everyone. How many people who do check their email will we reach who would not have seen a talk page? Not everyone who is not a hopeless Wikiholic checks talk pages every day, but most people check email pretty regularly.
-Kat
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
- Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
Please please please let it be so! After having to mark several thousand bad uploads for deletion, and realizing it was just a tiny percentage of the total problem, I'd agree to anything that would stop the deluge of sh!t.
I think it's hard for people who haven't worked on image cleanup to realize how much grunt work is created by the hundreds and sometimes thousands of bad uploads that accumulate each and every day.
Stan
I agree, at least on it.wp there are so many images that were uploaded with no indication whatsoever of their origin and we have to delete them even if they're likely to be own work by the uploader who has disappeared in the meantime. One can then not reply to emails, but at least we would have made an effort to keep the images.
Cruccone
On 6/28/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
- Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
Please please please let it be so! After having to mark several thousand bad uploads for deletion, and realizing it was just a tiny percentage of the total problem, I'd agree to anything that would stop the deluge of sh!t.
I think it's hard for people who haven't worked on image cleanup to realize how much grunt work is created by the hundreds and sometimes thousands of bad uploads that accumulate each and every day.
Stan
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 29/06/06, Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
- Many people won't be uploading images if it requires email registration
Please please please let it be so! After having to mark several thousand bad uploads for deletion, and realizing it was just a tiny percentage of the total problem, I'd agree to anything that would stop the deluge of sh!t.
I think it's hard for people who haven't worked on image cleanup to realize how much grunt work is created by the hundreds and sometimes thousands of bad uploads that accumulate each and every day.
I have to agree. Image contributions are not equivalent to text contributions at all. While many people who are ignorant of copyright can make non-copyvio text contributions it seems impossible for them to make non-copyvio image contributions.
As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not missing much.
It depends if you want to implement this as a way of verifying licenses (I don't think it will help with this), or as a way to slow down image uploaders (it will slow them down, but I think it's a bit underhanded). Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my observation.
cheers, Brianna en.wp,commons:User:pfctdayelise
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my observation.
Um. You can block users from uploading. It's called the block button. If someone is too incompetent or too malicious to discontinue uploading inappropriate material after they have been asked to stop then they have no business editing what so ever... what makes you so sure they aren't busily adding copyvio articles? It's not always easy to spot.
Don't use technology to fix broken people. Whats proposed isn't at all equal, we want email addresses so what we can educate people who would otherwise never hear our messages.
On 29/06/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my observation.
Um. You can block users from uploading. It's called the block button. If someone is too incompetent or too malicious to discontinue uploading inappropriate material after they have been asked to stop then they have no business editing what so ever...
A full block is in many situations too heavy handed. What is the problem? They upload images with insufficient source. What do we want them to do? Add source information to their existing uploads. How do we currently solve this? We block them from editing altogether. Uh....oops.
The easiest way to educate them is on-wiki. When they can only edit their talk page, it makes it a tiny bit hard.
what makes you so
sure they aren't busily adding copyvio articles? It's not always easy to spot.
Nothing makes me so sure, it's just my gut feeling based on observation. Newbie editors who are keen and add good, obviously-non-copyvio text frequently get tripped up when they try to augment their articles with images. Maybe some en.wp image patrollers will contradict me, fine.
Brianna
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not missing much.
The practice of deleting with extreme prejudice is the best tool we have today on enwiki. It is, at least somewhat, effective. However deletion creates a lot of opportunity for tension in the community, there are a lot of people who would like to keep their favorite image at any cost, at least any cost short of them figuring out the copyright status themselves...
The status quo has become socially harmful, so we must reach out for more middle ground approaches which do not compromise our legal and ethical obligations or the fundamental goals of our project.
When I can demonstrate that I've make a more complete attempt to avoid deleting an image a reasonable person should expect to have a more calm response.
It depends if you want to implement this as a way of verifying licenses (I don't think it will help with this), or as a way to slow down image uploaders (it will slow them down, but I think it's a bit underhanded). Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my observation.
We have previously used email contact in some cases to verify licenses but since around 80% of deleted images do not have an email contact it's not possible currently to institutionalize the behavior and gauge its effectiveness.
I am unsure exactly what level of image upload reduction there will be but based on the impact that the removal of anon editing had on the creation of new articles I would not expect much if any at all. I must also point out that whatever reduction does occur will almost certainly be strongly biased in favor of reducing the uploads of images which we would be subsequently deleted. Thus it would only take a small number of rescued images to offset any reduction in the rate of good image uploads.
A question for the list, is anyone aware of a single other site which is even semi-popular and accepts images uploads without an email confirmed account? It's is my thought that such a request has long since been the norm on the Internet, and as a result will not pose a substantial or unexpected hurdle for our users.
The fact that one of the internet stock photo sites we've we've taken images from on commons has confirmed emails will likely save hundreds of free content images from deletion.
The best idea I've heard in awhile.
On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not missing much.
The practice of deleting with extreme prejudice is the best tool we have today on enwiki. It is, at least somewhat, effective. However deletion creates a lot of opportunity for tension in the community, there are a lot of people who would like to keep their favorite image at any cost, at least any cost short of them figuring out the copyright status themselves...
The status quo has become socially harmful, so we must reach out for more middle ground approaches which do not compromise our legal and ethical obligations or the fundamental goals of our project.
When I can demonstrate that I've make a more complete attempt to avoid deleting an image a reasonable person should expect to have a more calm response.
It depends if you want to implement this as a way of verifying licenses (I don't think it will help with this), or as a way to slow down image uploaders (it will slow them down, but I think it's a bit underhanded). Now what would be REALLY good to slow down problem uploaders would be if we could block users from uploading, only ( see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4995 , my baby!). Seems like it could be really handy on en.wp too. Because copyvio image users do not also tend to be copyvio text users, that's my observation.
We have previously used email contact in some cases to verify licenses but since around 80% of deleted images do not have an email contact it's not possible currently to institutionalize the behavior and gauge its effectiveness.
I am unsure exactly what level of image upload reduction there will be but based on the impact that the removal of anon editing had on the creation of new articles I would not expect much if any at all. I must also point out that whatever reduction does occur will almost certainly be strongly biased in favor of reducing the uploads of images which we would be subsequently deleted. Thus it would only take a small number of rescued images to offset any reduction in the rate of good image uploads.
A question for the list, is anyone aware of a single other site which is even semi-popular and accepts images uploads without an email confirmed account? It's is my thought that such a request has long since been the norm on the Internet, and as a result will not pose a substantial or unexpected hurdle for our users.
The fact that one of the internet stock photo sites we've we've taken images from on commons has confirmed emails will likely save hundreds of free content images from deletion. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Now, let's think a bit. In order to upload a file, you need to be a registered user. I don't think that many people that are not put off by having to register will be put off by supply an email address which is not published and having to validate it. However, what's the situation with accounts that provided an email address which has never been verified because it was supplied before validation started and the user didn't bother afterwards? At least of it.wikipedia there are hundreds of images that were uploaded say in 2004 when copyright requirements were less strict (as soon as a realistic licence tag was there the image could stay, even without any indication of the author)? Quite a few of these images were uploaded by users that haven't been active since, but the email address they provided is still existing, probably. And I tink this feature is even more useful for Commons, where even active wikimedians normally only occasionally upload some file, therefore not reading their talk page that often - well, single login would help even more...
Cruccone
mboverload wrote:
The best idea I've heard in awhile.
On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
As for requiring email address... eh. They are typically just as throwaway as a wiki account. I have no problem with the current method of deleting with extreme prejudice. By deleting such images WP is not missing much.
The practice of deleting with extreme prejudice is the best tool we have today on enwiki. It is, at least somewhat, effective. However deletion creates a lot of opportunity for tension in the community, there are a lot of people who would like to keep their favorite image at any cost, at least any cost short of them figuring out the copyright status themselves...
On 6/29/06, Marco Chiesa chiesa.marco@gmail.com wrote:
However, what's the situation with accounts that provided an email address which has never been verified because it was supplied before validation started and the user didn't bother afterwards?
The proposed change applies only to uploads. So, existing images will be unaffected. Users with preexisting accounts that do not have a confirmed email set will be unable to upload until they set one.
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them. Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know how to reach them.
Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
-Kat
Hoi, People who contribute a picture once are not vandals. It is ridiculous to suggest this
The rules of the "game" have increasingly become more restrictive and pictures that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable. I have in the past uploaded uploaded pictures with permission. I had added a message about the original author at the time. Then came thumbs and these messages went, some time later people decided to check permissions could not find them and deleted stuff. I found it out after I signed on to that project after some time. Because of the elegance in which people the Commons "community" decide that it is their way or the high way, I became in many ways less interested.
People insist that it is not feasible to discuss changes to Commons policies with the projects in advance and, that it is sufficient to restrict this discussion to intimi.. This seems to me reminiscent to one of those tribes that ultimately moved into Africa in AD400 or thereabouts.
I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the same however the number of material that you still want to check increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem is not what is depicted.
By talking about it as if there is a crisis, you make it a crisis; it seems as if we are at war.. I am not convinced AT ALL.
Thanks, GerardM
I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions. GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with actual numbers (won't you Greg?) =)
As to Tomasz' statements, I am equally interested in hearing what data, if any, could be marshalled support your broad assertions. They don't strike me as valid, though I could be proven wrong. I have doubts that will be the case.
Erik's point is well taken; the deletionists have the better argument as far as Commons goes, so I lean in his direction on that point. I do know that there is still a lot of garbage in Commons nevertheless.
I still don't see, especially in the case of single login, how providing an email address is a net loss for those who upload images. Nobody has answered why the balance should tilt in favor of single-uploaders rather than established users.
On 6/28/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them. Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know how to reach them.
Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
-Kat
Hoi, People who contribute a picture once are not vandals. It is ridiculous to suggest this
The rules of the "game" have increasingly become more restrictive and pictures that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable. I have in the past uploaded uploaded pictures with permission. I had added a message about the original author at the time. Then came thumbs and these messages went, some time later people decided to check permissions could not find them and deleted stuff. I found it out after I signed on to that project after some time. Because of the elegance in which people the Commons "community" decide that it is their way or the high way, I became in many ways less interested.
People insist that it is not feasible to discuss changes to Commons policies with the projects in advance and, that it is sufficient to restrict this discussion to intimi.. This seems to me reminiscent to one of those tribes that ultimately moved into Africa in AD400 or thereabouts.
I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the same however the number of material that you still want to check increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem is not what is depicted.
By talking about it as if there is a crisis, you make it a crisis; it seems as if we are at war.. I am not convinced AT ALL.
Thanks, GerardM _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hoi, A proposal is discussed that suggest that something "needs" to be done. This need is not substantiated but it is assumed to be there. The idea of a bell-curve is an argument that Jimmy used in one of his presentations to point out to alarmists that there is a perceived crisis but not much of an actual crisis. However, given the volume of pictures that end up on Commons, I can understand and sympathise with the people who deal with this to some extend. Thanks, GerardM
Brad Patrick wrote:
I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions. GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with actual numbers (won't you Greg?) =)
As to Tomasz' statements, I am equally interested in hearing what data, if any, could be marshalled support your broad assertions. They don't strike me as valid, though I could be proven wrong. I have doubts that will be the case.
Erik's point is well taken; the deletionists have the better argument as far as Commons goes, so I lean in his direction on that point. I do know that there is still a lot of garbage in Commons nevertheless.
I still don't see, especially in the case of single login, how providing an email address is a net loss for those who upload images. Nobody has answered why the balance should tilt in favor of single-uploaders rather than established users.
On 6/28/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
Gaining nothing? It hurts users for us not to be able to contact them. Text usually stays, as a fact in an article can be found and supported by a source even if it is not the same source the writer used. But an image? If we cannot find the original and do not know where it came from, it must be deleted. That's a pretty big loss, I think, both for Wikimedia not being able to use it and for the original contributor who sees the effort they spent to upload and place it gone to waste.
This isn't intended to stop vandalism, though it may slow it; any vandal can register an account with an email address also. It is intended to help good-faith users who want to contribute media. We need to be strict about enforcing proper tagging and licensing of images; we cannot budge on that. But it is a sad loss to delete things simply because they didn't understand the procedure and we don't know how to reach them.
Confirming an email address is a small thing and a one-time thing, and does not require giving up anonymity. I still see it a net positive.
-Kat
Hoi, People who contribute a picture once are not vandals. It is ridiculous to suggest this
The rules of the "game" have increasingly become more restrictive and pictures that used to be acceptable are no longer considered acceptable. I have in the past uploaded uploaded pictures with permission. I had added a message about the original author at the time. Then came thumbs and these messages went, some time later people decided to check permissions could not find them and deleted stuff. I found it out after I signed on to that project after some time. Because of the elegance in which people the Commons "community" decide that it is their way or the high way, I became in many ways less interested.
People insist that it is not feasible to discuss changes to Commons policies with the projects in advance and, that it is sufficient to restrict this discussion to intimi.. This seems to me reminiscent to one of those tribes that ultimately moved into Africa in AD400 or thereabouts.
I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the same however the number of material that you still want to check increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem is not what is depicted.
By talking about it as if there is a crisis, you make it a crisis; it seems as if we are at war.. I am not convinced AT ALL.
Thanks, GerardM
On 6/28/06, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, A proposal is discussed that suggest that something "needs" to be done. This need is not substantiated but it is assumed to be there. The idea of a bell-curve is an argument that Jimmy used in one of his presentations to point out to alarmists that there is a perceived crisis but not much of an actual crisis. However, given the volume of pictures that end up on Commons, I can understand and sympathise with the people who deal with this to some extend.
So unless we can prove there is a crisis we can change nothing?
I can't speak for the others in this thread, I don't believe there is a crisis here, at least not any that this move will solve.
I believe that change reduce the amount of, likely low quality, submissions we must delete. I don't cry over the loss of these today, rather I believe this move is simply and clearly correct. I also look forward to an increased opportunity to interact with our submitters and hopefully encourage them to submit more.
The objections I've heard thus far seem to be some vague worries about decreasing openness, concerns that we will substantially decrease uploading by requiring one more step, and Gerard's concern which appears to be the belief that we're motivated to make this change by some form of panic.
I can only respond by saying that this change will not inhibit anyone but the unwilling from uploading it's an extra step but not a prohibition, that the numbers (in my prior post) suggest to me that any decrease in uploads could very well be offset by a decline in deletions, and that I'm not panicked.
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions. GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with actual numbers (won't you Greg?) =)
Sure,
I think the most compelling bit of backup is the anecdotal one which every person who has deleted images on Enwiki can tell you: we are unable to get answers to basic questions for many images and must delete them. Does anyone here who's done a substantial amount of image patrolling on enwiki disagree? It's easy to produce examples, just look for at orphanbot's deleted edits.
However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march. *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails. *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march. *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails. *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
I wanted to give stats on what percentage of deleted images came from users who had recent editing activity, but query is too expensive to answer off hand.
I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based on the numbers.
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions. GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem with actual numbers (won't you Greg?) =)
Sure,
I think the most compelling bit of backup is the anecdotal one which every person who has deleted images on Enwiki can tell you: we are unable to get answers to basic questions for many images and must delete them. Does anyone here who's done a substantial amount of image patrolling on enwiki disagree? It's easy to produce examples, just look for at orphanbot's deleted edits.
However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march. *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails. *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march. *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails. *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
I wanted to give stats on what percentage of deleted images came from users who had recent editing activity, but query is too expensive to answer off hand.
I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based on the numbers.
Hoi, These numbers provide a snapshot. They do not indicate how these numbers relate to the overall number of Commons and they do not indicate if the problem becomes worse. The argument was that this trend should be seen in percentages, this is not provided by the data. What was the average time that deleted pictures were on the system ??
This policy is very much going to happen as you lot seem determined to push it through.. Never mind ..
What I would be interested in knowing is the usage in percentage of Commons pictures used in articles per project.
Thanks, GerardM
Those are some really compelling figures and therefore arguments. (And I don't disagree about the yeoman's service done by those who edit on uploaded images).
Surely nobody is prepared to argue that where we are talking about an image stream measured in dozens of thousands, the yield is so pathetic, and the immediate reduction in problem uploads can (theoretically) be cut by a [[insert adjective here]] amount, we ought not consider the change? 5 out of 6 deletes comes from a non-email-enabled user? Geez...
My position is geared to support the community. Here it seems a substantial amount of editing time and effort can be refactored favorably to (a) reduce bad image upload / copyvio (b) increase communication (mere ability to communicate!) with presumably new contributors (WP:Newbie) (c) encourage, not eliminate, their work, just by helping with the right way to contribute image content (d) stem the tide of wasted human effort in dealing with this problem (bots too) (e) emphasize positive contributions (f) decrease whining and scare tactics (g) big morale boost to image patrollers =)
Sounds like a bit fat net positive to me.
On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brad Patrick bradp.wmf@gmail.com wrote:
I would be interested to know on what data you rest your conclusions. GMaxwell will back up his statements about the nature of the problem
with
actual numbers (won't you Greg?) =)
Sure,
I think the most compelling bit of backup is the anecdotal one which every person who has deleted images on Enwiki can tell you: we are unable to get answers to basic questions for many images and must delete them. Does anyone here who's done a substantial amount of image patrolling on enwiki disagree? It's easy to produce examples, just look for at orphanbot's deleted edits.
However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march. *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails. *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march. *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails. *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
I wanted to give stats on what percentage of deleted images came from users who had recent editing activity, but query is too expensive to answer off hand.
I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based on the numbers. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Brad Patrick wrote:
Surely nobody is prepared to argue that where we are talking about an image stream measured in dozens of thousands, the yield is so pathetic, and the immediate reduction in problem uploads can (theoretically) be cut by a [[insert adjective here]] amount, we ought not consider the change? 5 out of 6 deletes comes from a non-email-enabled user? Geez...
My position is geared to support the community. Here it seems a substantial amount of editing time and effort can be refactored favorably to ... (b) increase communication (mere ability to communicate!) with presumably new contributors (WP:Newbie)
Some of us don't want people emailing us through the wiki, because we'd prefer messages on our talk pages.
-Mark
Delirium wrote:
Brad Patrick wrote:
Surely nobody is prepared to argue that where we are talking about an image stream measured in dozens of thousands, the yield is so pathetic, and the immediate reduction in problem uploads can (theoretically) be cut by a [[insert adjective here]] amount, we ought not consider the change? 5 out of 6 deletes comes from a non-email-enabled user? Geez...
My position is geared to support the community. Here it seems a substantial amount of editing time and effort can be refactored favorably to ... (b) increase communication (mere ability to communicate!) with presumably new contributors (WP:Newbie)
Some of us don't want people emailing us through the wiki, because we'd prefer messages on our talk pages.
Hmm, it strikes me that maybe I misinterpreted this. By "email-enabled", I assumed you meant "has his/her account configured to allow 'email this user' to work". Do you instead mean simply entering an email address somewhere behind the scenes separately from the "email this user" functionality?
-Mark
On 6/28/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
However, I like numbers... they can mislead but they can also be food for thought. Keep in mind we don't current recommend that anyone use the email this user to contact inactive uploaders simply because few of the images which are eligible for deletion have a confirmed user.
There were 57,472 images uploaded to enwiki in march. *21,000 come from uploaders with confirmed emails. *36,472 come from uploaders without confirmed emails
There were 30,981 total images deleted on enwiki in march. *5,149 were uploaded by users who had confirmed emails. *25,832 were uploaded by users who did not have confirmed emails.
I think the policy makes sense based both on my experience and based on the numbers.
So about 40% of useful contributions come from users without confirmed emails, and we would be throwing them away ?
The numbers prove clearly that the proposed policy is really stupid.
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
So about 40% of useful contributions come from users without confirmed emails, and we would be throwing them away ?
There's no evidence of what percentage of these uploaders would be willing to provide a confirmed email address if required to do so.
There are many editors who entered an email address ages ago before confirmation was required, and now do not have a confirmed email address because of this. Despite sitenotices, most have probably not gone and fixed the problem, since there's been no pressing personal need to do so.
-Matt
I think the bigger problem is all the crap images that are never used. (Especially on the commons). If you won't provide full and complete metadata and add it to the proper page, you shouldn't upload it.
On 6/30/06, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote:
So about 40% of useful contributions come from users without confirmed emails, and we would be throwing them away ?
There's no evidence of what percentage of these uploaders would be willing to provide a confirmed email address if required to do so.
There are many editors who entered an email address ages ago before confirmation was required, and now do not have a confirmed email address because of this. Despite sitenotices, most have probably not gone and fixed the problem, since there's been no pressing personal need to do so.
-Matt _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I also dispute that our problem becomes bigger. I am convinced that the problem is like a bell-curve, as the absolute number of pictures goes up, the percentage of what you consider "problematic" pictures stays the same however the number of material that you still want to check increases. When you confuse this with a growing problem you easily forget the number of files that have been checked. Because people are working hard on this in a best effort way and as we are quite ready to remove material that is in violation of our copyright rules the problem is not what is depicted.
Try your hand at reviewing and fixing up the day's thousand uploads in less than 24 hours, then come back and tell us if you still think it's not a serious problem.
Stan
On 6/28/06, Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw@users.sf.net wrote: [snip]
On English Wikipedia one cannot even create an article without a registration (as if registration meant anything), what in my opinion is a huge blow to our former openness.
In one breath you claim that registration is insignificant and in the next you claim that it destroys our openness. Can both claims actually be true?
In any case, the registration for creation has been an experiment, when the change was made no one was confident at how effective it would be... since then we've gained some experience. I can say from my measurements is that it appears that while inhibiting non-registered user article creation has somewhat decreased the instantaneous rate of inappropriate article creation, but it has simultaneously made our review process less effective (new users look a lot like established users on recent changes, especially after someone has moved their vanity article to user namspace). I am unable to say with certainty without further analysis if this change has been a net detriment, but I would be surprised if it was a net gain.
But this is what experiments are for... we are in uncharted waters for some of our activities.
In contrast, inhibiting uploads from non-confirmed email users would be far less of an experiment. We have a clear and articulatable need for the email contact for uploaders today, and we already use it in the rare cases where they have a confirmed email address.
I suppose that if you'd rather that we continue to simply delete the uploads of folks whom don't understand that they need to tell us that they own the picture... Then I can see why you would oppose this. But that doesn't seem like a very open system to me.
To me an open system is one where people can actually make a real contribution, not just a pointless upload which will be deleted in a week.
But a confirmed email addresses for uploading photos ? This is really way too sick. We would be annoying every single contributor while gaining absolutely nothing.
We would gain some hope of contacting the thousands of uploaders who right now leave us with no other choice but to delete their submissions. I see this as a gain.
We should rather get back to the situation where unregistered users have all the options available - editing pages, creating new articles, uploading pictures, moving articles, everything. Having to register doesn't stop a single vandal.
This isn't suggested as a method for stopping vandals... It is suggested as a method for helping people who simply don't know better and need our help to contribute.
I'm curious, do you know how many image are deleted on enwiki per month?
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
<snip>
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
Let's do it. Sounds like a great idea. Copyvios are a big problem in that it can put Wikipedia in legal trouble, and most of the copyvio images are uploaded by new or inexperienced users who think that just because something is already online they can upload it to another site online. This will help cut down on those problems and will really take a load off the back of the poor people who tirelessly deal with bad copyvio images.
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
I would support this measure for wikis which permit fair use (such as en.wp), and oppose it for Commons. As [[en:Wikipedia:Fair use]] explains, tracking down the sources of fair use uploads is good practice -- it strengthens our own position, and makes it easier for third parties to decide whether fair use applies to them. Having e-mail addresses on file would help with that.
Given that there's currently not central user database, having to confirm an e-mail address again for Commons strikes me as an unnecessary barrier to entry, particularly since our practice is generally to simply delete files without a clear source. On Commons, I'd rather wish for special processes to educate new users about the meaning of "free content" (see the discussion on commons-l about a licensing tutorial as a mandatory sign-up step).
Erik
On 6/28/06, Erik Moeller eloquence@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
I would support this measure for wikis which permit fair use (such as en.wp), and oppose it for Commons. As [[en:Wikipedia:Fair use]] explains, tracking down the sources of fair use uploads is good practice -- it strengthens our own position, and makes it easier for third parties to decide whether fair use applies to them. Having e-mail addresses on file would help with that.
Interesting. Oppose it for Commons? If anything images that are *claimed* fair use are easier to manage, I think... we already know it is copyrighted to someone else, and if it's being used under fair use it ought to be a notable image and therefore reasonably easy to find/source.
It's the ones that look like they might be self-created but we can't verify that are more of a headache, I think. We want to assume good faith, yes, but there are so many that are actually bogus.
Given that there's currently not central user database, having to confirm an e-mail address again for Commons strikes me as an unnecessary barrier to entry, particularly since our practice is generally to simply delete files without a clear source.
I've seen plenty of dubious images on commons I would really like to have been able to get a good answer about.
So it's two email addresses that would need to be confirmed... until single user login is implemented. (This is really coming, right? Right?) I don't see that as an unreasonable barrier. As for "unnecessary" -- well, the project hasn't fallen apart thus far without, but there are a lot of unnecessary things that are still a win.
On Commons, I'd rather wish for special processes to educate new users about the meaning of "free content" (see the discussion on commons-l about a licensing tutorial as a mandatory sign-up step).
I like that idea too. :-)
-Kat
Kat Walsh wrote:
snip<
So it's two email addresses that would need to be confirmed... until single user login is implemented. (This is really coming, right? Right?) I don't see that as an unreasonable barrier. As for "unnecessary" -- well, the project hasn't fallen apart thus far without, but there are a lot of unnecessary things that are still a win.
IIRC having a confirmed email address will prove to be highly useful when the single login approaches, as some sort of proof that the same person owns the various accounts to which they might lay claim.
So we ought to be promoting this in any case...
HTH HAND
On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC having a confirmed email address will prove to be highly useful when the single login approaches, as some sort of proof that the same person owns the various accounts to which they might lay claim.
The best proof is knowing the password :-).
Erik
Erik Moeller-3 wrote:
On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
IIRC having a confirmed email address will prove to be highly useful when the single login approaches, as some sort of proof that the same person owns the various accounts to which they might lay claim.
The best proof is knowing the password :-).
Yes.
But to add the email you had to have known the password, and unless I'm sorely mistaken it is possible to recover the email address for an automated process to compare between two accounts, whereas if this were true for passwords...
HTH HAND
On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell phil.boswell@gmail.com wrote:
But to add the email you had to have known the password, and unless I'm sorely mistaken it is possible to recover the email address for an automated process to compare between two accounts, whereas if this were true for passwords...
Having confirmed e-mail addresses for all your accounts is definitely going to make migration easier, but we're only ever going to get that for a subset of accounts. If your accounts use the same password, the merging of old accounts into the global system can be done transparently for the user at login time.
Now, it's always good to talk about single login strategies, because that will hopefully guilt trip Brion into finishing the implementation ;-). But I think it's a separate issue from the e-mail upload confirmation problem.
Erik
Account merging will be done based on e-mails (as you can set your password based on emails) because you can't compare passwords (due to the salt). The merging by password will be done if your local and global account have the same password when you login. Not really automatic. See the evil-plans for more info.
"Erik Moeller" wrote:
On 6/28/06, Phil Boswell wrote:
But to add the email you had to have known the password, and unless I'm sorely mistaken it is possible to recover the email address for an automated process to compare between two accounts, whereas if this were true for passwords...
Having confirmed e-mail addresses for all your accounts is definitely going to make migration easier, but we're only ever going to get that for a subset of accounts. If your accounts use the same password, the merging of old accounts into the global system can be done transparently for the user at login time.
Now, it's always good to talk about single login strategies, because that will hopefully guilt trip Brion into finishing the implementation ;-). But I think it's a separate issue from the e-mail upload confirmation problem.
Erik
On 6/29/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
Account merging will be done based on e-mails (as you can set your password based on emails) because you can't compare passwords (due to the salt). The merging by password will be done if your local and global account have the same password when you login. Not really automatic. See the evil-plans for more info.
We're saying the same thing. As I wrote: "If your accounts use the same password, the merging of old accounts into the global system can be done transparently for the user at login time." There is no need for a confirmed e-mail address to exist in order to merge accounts.
Erik
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting. Oppose it for Commons? If anything images that are *claimed* fair use are easier to manage, I think... we already know it is copyrighted to someone else, and if it's being used under fair use it ought to be a notable image and therefore reasonably easy to find/source.
[...]
I've seen plenty of dubious images on commons I would really like to have been able to get a good answer about.
My view is that having e-mail addresses on file is great for _improving_ the state of information of images which we don't want to delete because they are still "sort of" legal to keep around anyway. You're right that many fair use images can be easily traced to a source. Examples which are harder include: scans from the actual pages of unidentified magazines or books, historical photographs from the 1940s to 1970s which were found on the web, etc. Here I'd often like to contact the uploaders to get closer to the chain of events (often something like photo=>book=>scan=>website 1=>website 2=>Wikipedia).
On the other hand, for dealing with material that is outright dubious and not in compliance with our legal requirements, I think the answer is to delete it. This "punishes" only the user who forgot to provide the information in compliance with policy, rather than requiring _all_ users to go through a confirmation process. For a free content repository like Commons, it's fine to be aggressive about licensing requirements. An e-mail requirement added now to Commons would also have little effect on existing uploads by drive-by users who don't check their talk page -- and Commons has become significantly more deletionist over time, esp. since image undeletability was added.
Besides, enabling e-mail confirmation for uploads only on en.wp and maybe a few other wikis with fair use would allow us to gauge better how useful it is before enabling it elsewhere or even globally.
Erik
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in totuch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
In light of Greg's statistical evidence (83% of images deleted in recent months were uploaded by individuals without confirmed email addresses), I am in full concurrence with the idea of making this a requirement.
Openness is a means to an end, and in this case I think we are too open.
Kelly
On 6/28/06, Kat Walsh mindspillage@gmail.com wrote:
One of the big problems with checking and tagging images is that we often cannot contact the uploaders -- they register an account, maybe only to upload, and then they never log in again, never check their talk page, didn't provide an email address, and you have no way to contact them.
A lot of images are deleted because we simply have no way to contact the uploader who didn't provide a source or a license to ask them what the correct information is.
I think it would be a big step forward to require a confirmed email address in order to upload images. It's a not a large hurdle for contributors, no minimum time or edit count -- just that we must be able to contact you, and then if we cannot, we're sure it's not just because you haven't been checking your talk page.
This would also make it far easier for reusers of our media to contact the contributors to confirm! Wikimedia gets many requests to reprint photos and often we have to say that we simply do not know how to get in touch with the copyright holder -- someone who last edited a year ago is not likely to check a talk page.
I hear it said that this would be an easy feature to implement.
Suggestions/thoughts/objections?
-Kat
I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler. I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the level of vandalism by IPs.
~maru
On 6/28/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler. I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the level of vandalism by IPs.
After the fact evidence shows that the anonymous newpage prohibition was counterproductive, actually. Good thing that nothing proposed here is an attempt to curb vandalism.
I posted a substantial amount of data on the subject, more than we had considered before the anonymous newpage prohibition was put into effect. If you'd like anything more I'd be glad to research it, but I'd hope that you understand that the problem we're trying to solve is a communications and education problem, not a vandalism problem or even a copyright problem.
On 6/28/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is as clear cut as you think it is. In the case of requiring users to register to start articles, and we had solid evidence that our openess was actively harmful- pace Siegenthaler. I've seen no reason to believe that our current level of openness w/r/t images is actively harmful, and not merely a nuisance on the level of vandalism by IPs.
Perhaps you should do newimage patrol for a few weeks, then. If vandalism were taking place at the same rate as bad image uploads, people would be screaming bloody murder.
My bot's spending about ten hours a day handling bad image uploads, and I'm spending another two to three. Between us, we're catching about 95% of images without a license tag, about 20% of images without a source, and about 2% of invalid fair-use claims. I don't have time to follow up on any of this -- if the uploader removes the {{no info}} or {{untagged}} template, the image simply gets lost among the tens of thousands of other problem images. I can follow up on the ten or so fair-use claims I dispute each day, but that takes another hour, and doesn't do much good -- for every image I dispute, another 50 get uploaded.
My best estimate is that there are around 100,000 images on the English Wikipedia with a clearly invalid "fair use" claim or being used in a manner inconsistent with their fair-use tag, and another 100,000 with an incorrect free-license claim. Any one of those could harm us worse than the whole Siegenthaler mess when the copyright holder files an infringement lawsuit.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org