Steve Bennett said:
We have some loose integration with Google maps (and competitors), with libraries and online bookstores
I'm not an expert on how Wikipedia is set up, however to my knowledge, these additions are not tied to the functionality of the site. That is, if one of those services went down, wikipedia would continue to operate as normal, just with some broken pages.
Tying actual modification functionality to a third party is a different matter (IMO). If that photo-edit site went down for a period, then that functionality would be unavailable for that duration (however long it may be). Whether this is acceptable is a question for people with policy setting power.
GerardM said:
This is what they call the "not invented here" syndrome
According to wikpdedia [1] (emphasis mine), "Not Invented Here (NIH) is a term used to describe a persistent sociological, corporate or institutional culture that avoids using already existing products, research or knowledge because of its different origins."
I don't feel that NIH applies to this case as there are actual technical and political considerations, not simply who happened to write the code.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here
-- Jim
On 8/13/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, This is what they call the "not invented here" syndrome... There are good reasons to make use of functionality that was developed elsewhere. For one, it works and it works now.
Given that we have a problem in getting functionality life, important functionality like Single User Logon, it is not smart to think that we can do it all, should do it all. We have proven conclusively that we cannot do it. Thanks, GerardM
On 8/13/07, Jim Wilson wilson.jim.r@gmail.com wrote:
Mmmmm...but why? There's an awesome interface that would do everything we want. Why code from scratch a "basic...interface"?
I think his point was that it would prevent having to depend on a third-party. There's something to be said for keeping it all "in house"
-- Jim R. Wilson (jimbojw)
On 8/13/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/13/07, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
For example, someone decided that a 3/4 view of a camera wasn't as good as a full front view. They twisted the image electronically to make it look kinda like a frontal view, but this left part of the camera body missing. So they painted it in. I'd take less issue with the fact that their paintjob looked poor were it not for the fact
that
they got the shape of the camera body quite wrong. :( So the EnWikipedia (at least) article had a inaccurate hack job of an image for a few weeks for that particular camera before I noticed it and reverted the image on commons. :(
Yeah. Sounds like a good-faith edit that went horribly wrong.
Compared to that I'm not too worried about
brightness/color/cropping..
etc.. but I think that using an external site for this is
completely
wrong. Dynamic crops should be a native feature of our repository, you should be able to upload a single image then define alternative views which are on the fly generated crops. Other really simple alterations (like most of the ones offered by that site) could be offered this way.
We've discussed this in the past, but it's a fair bit of work, and nothing came of it. I'm not sure if a formal proposal was made anywhere, but there were discussions to allow attributes, like [[image:foo.jpg|cropx=15,150|brightness=+3]]. Obviously that would have readability problems.
It looks like you're suggesting having a dynamic view on another image, though, something like: [[Image:foo2.jpg]] which contains text like #IMAGEVIEW [[Image:foo.jpg]] with other tags indicating what kinds of tweaks to apply.
That could be good too. I don't think the two proposals are mutually exclusive. Could I also suggest making it easy to display a particular revision of an image. Then you would never be affected by someone else editing the image later on.
I played with the site (on a friends computer, it requires flash),
the
interface is snazzy no doubt, but all the manipulations it offers
save
red-eye are things that Imagemagic could provide... I could pretty easily setup a basic ajax interface that offered those filters and
let
you tweak their settings in real time.
Mmmmm...but why? There's an awesome interface that would do everything we want. Why code from scratch a "basic...interface"?
Steve
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l