Now that the Wikimedia Commons is being widely used as a central image archive - if you haven't already, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/ - we are facing the question again whether we want to store image galleries in Wikipedia. There currently are a few, e.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_Fayum_mummy_portraits
My proposal would be that such galleries should reside on the Commons, unless they include substantial encyclopedic information for individual images. Substantial information would be at least a paragraph of text describing the image's content. If there is no such information, the relevant article should include a link to the Commons gallery and a couple of striking example images.
An interesting side effect of such a policy would be that fair use images could only be used in an encyclopedic context, as they are not allowed on the Commons.
Any other thoughts?
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Now that the Wikimedia Commons is being widely used as a central image archive - if you haven't already, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/
- we are facing the question again whether we want to store image
galleries in Wikipedia. There currently are a few, e.g.:
Even if it does include a significant amount of encyclopedic content, it should be on Wikicommons. Image galeries reside on commons: period. Fair use images should be all out in the long term anyway.
regards, Gerrit.
Erik Moeller wrote:
Now that the Wikimedia Commons is being widely used as a central image archive - if you haven't already, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/
- we are facing the question again whether we want to store image
galleries in Wikipedia.
I think it's worth suggesting that people take a look, but the commons is not really ready for primetime; while there's been a lot of energetic image dumping, not so much effort has gone into organization or cross-reference support. My experience so far has been to be confronted with piles of random uploads of monster pictures, sort of like some horrible museum where if you express interest in something, the docent grabs you and shoves you up against the painting, and you have to walk back and forth with your nose to the wall in order to view it. :-)
It also seems that there is not a consensus as to whether the commons is a bare repository for editors to draw upon, versus something that you want to send readers to. It would be unfortunate to move a gallery there and then have somebody delete it because "that's not what the commons is for."
Stan
I would like to see each wikipedia be able to view what's in the Wiki-Commons from within their own wiki, but in their own language, and when they upload a picture, they upload to the commons, not the wiki, thereby saving server space. So, if I log into the German wiki, I can edit a description of the picture, and from English, Dutch, etc., I can do the same thing, and it all describes the same picture, not multiple copies of the same picture.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Stan Shebs Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:32 AM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Galleries on Wikipedia vs. galleries on WikimediaCommons
Erik Moeller wrote:
Now that the Wikimedia Commons is being widely used as a central image archive - if you haven't already, check out http://commons.wikimedia.org/
- we are facing the question again whether we want to store image
galleries in Wikipedia.
I think it's worth suggesting that people take a look, but the commons is not really ready for primetime; while there's been a lot of energetic image dumping, not so much effort has gone into organization or cross-reference support. My experience so far has been to be confronted with piles of random uploads of monster pictures, sort of like some horrible museum where if you express interest in something, the docent grabs you and shoves you up against the painting, and you have to walk back and forth with your nose to the wall in order to view it. :-)
It also seems that there is not a consensus as to whether the commons is a bare repository for editors to draw upon, versus something that you want to send readers to. It would be unfortunate to move a gallery there and then have somebody delete it because "that's not what the commons is for."
Stan
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
James-
I would like to see each wikipedia be able to view what's in the Wiki-Commons from within their own wiki, but in their own language, and when they upload a picture, they upload to the commons, not the wiki, thereby saving server space. So, if I log into the German wiki, I can edit a description of the picture, and from English, Dutch, etc., I can do the same thing, and it all describes the same picture, not multiple copies of the same picture.
If you have a Commons image like
[[Image:Magnolia blossom.jpg]]
and you use it on a Wikipedia, e.g.:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Magnolia_blossom.jpg
then you can edit the image description page and add a German text. The image still comes from the commons - no disk space wasted.
However, it is not currently possible to upload files from any other Wikimedia project directly to the Commons. That's because to do so, the Commons would have to know who you are - and every wiki has its own account database. We could use something like "Eloquence@enwikipedia" as the identity, or offer an option to store the Commons password in the preferences, but I'd rather wait until we have true single login instead of using a temporary hack.
Regards,
Erik
A single login would be quite nice. My question is, with the same name being occupied on many different wikipedias, how would that be handled? Your "Eloquence@enwikipedia" suggestion, with the screen showing only "Eloquence" would be nice. I agree to wait on a true solution rather than a hack.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Erik Moeller Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:40 PM To: wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Galleries on Wikipedia vs. galleries onWikimediaCommons
James-
I would like to see each wikipedia be able to view what's in the Wiki-Commons from within their own wiki, but in their own language, and
when
they upload a picture, they upload to the commons, not the wiki, thereby saving server space. So, if I log into the German wiki, I can edit a description of the picture, and from English, Dutch, etc., I can do the
same
thing, and it all describes the same picture, not multiple copies of the same picture.
If you have a Commons image like
[[Image:Magnolia blossom.jpg]]
and you use it on a Wikipedia, e.g.:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Magnolia_blossom.jpg
then you can edit the image description page and add a German text. The image still comes from the commons - no disk space wasted.
However, it is not currently possible to upload files from any other Wikimedia project directly to the Commons. That's because to do so, the Commons would have to know who you are - and every wiki has its own account database. We could use something like "Eloquence@enwikipedia" as the identity, or offer an option to store the Commons password in the preferences, but I'd rather wait until we have true single login instead of using a temporary hack.
Regards,
Erik _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Nov 10, 2004, at 2:54 PM, James R. Johnson wrote:
A single login would be quite nice. My question is, with the same name being occupied on many different wikipedias, how would that be handled? Your "Eloquence@enwikipedia" suggestion, with the screen showing only "Eloquence" would be nice. I agree to wait on a true solution rather than a hack.
This is an issue that's been giving us indigestion for a couple of years. For some of the existing thought on the subject, please see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Single_signon_transition
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Stan-
I think it's worth suggesting that people take a look, but the commons is not really ready for primetime; while there's been a lot of energetic image dumping, not so much effort has gone into organization or cross-reference support. My experience so far has been to be confronted with piles of random uploads of monster pictures, sort of like some horrible museum where if you express interest in something, the docent grabs you and shoves you up against the painting, and you have to walk back and forth with your nose to the wall in order to view it. :-)
First, let me emphatically encourage everyone to upload the highest resolution version of any image you have which still includes useful information. It is of paramount importance for future print editions to have high resolution versions of our most important images. Scaling existing images down for display reasons is bad, bad, bad.
The CVS HEAD version of MediaWiki automatically scales down any super- sized image on the Image: description page and provides a link to the full-size version. Until this goes live, the huge image display on Image: pages has to be considered a temporary inconvenience.
As for organization, the development version also contains a feature that shows the thumbnails of images on Category: pages. That makes it quite easy to create image galleries. In the future, I would also like it to be possible to dynamically include captions from the image description pages, so that when no caption is provided, and the image description page contains one, it is used.
It also seems that there is not a consensus as to whether the commons is a bare repository for editors to draw upon, versus something that you want to send readers to. It would be unfortunate to move a gallery there and then have somebody delete it because "that's not what the commons is for."
Well, that's why we should make a decision on this matter now. I'll go with my proposed policy for now. In any case, useful information is unlikely to be deleted outright - that's what Transwiki is for.
Regards,
Erik
Erik Moeller ti 2004/11/10 EP 04:35 sia-kong:
In the future, I would also like it to be possible to dynamically include captions from the image description pages, so that when no caption is provided, and the image description page contains one, it is used.
Some images are largely self-explanatory, so I see this as an option controlled by the requesting page, with an indicator on the description page showing which of the requesting articles is "loading" the caption, or at least if any article is using it. It'd also require image description pages be used in a more consistent fashion, unless there's plan for some kind of tag or field to hold a formalized caption.
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org