Hi, This has probably been requested, but would it be possible to allow images to link to things other than the image file itself. Such a link is, helpful in featured pictures candidates, or when the image is being used as a thumbnail illustration in an article, but not helpful when the image is being used to illustrate a subtopic.
Not sure how best to adapt the syntax, but maybe allowing something like this:
[[Australia|[[Image:Australian flag.svg]]]]
This would leave open the possibility of having an image be part of a string that is linked.
Steve
Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Click
-- Alexander Sigachov
On 5/15/06, Александр Сигачёв alexander.sigachov@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, but that makes things almost worse - the solution exists, and the EN main page doesn't use it? I wonder how many thousands of times a day people click on the big image expecting to go to the article, and find themselves on the image page instead...
Thanks again, Steve
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Александр Сигачёв alexander.sigachov@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, but that makes things almost worse - the solution exists, and the EN main page doesn't use it? I wonder how many thousands of times a day people click on the big image expecting to go to the article, and find themselves on the image page instead...
Ok, I see that there is controversy surrounding this template, and for me at least, it doesn't actually work (the examples link directly to the image file, but with an ALT text of the intended link).
It would be good to have a real way of doing this, using plain old HTML: <A HREF="..."><IMG .../></A>, rather than apparently evil CSS.
Steve
On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, This has probably been requested, but would it be possible to allow images to link to things other than the image file itself. Such a link is, helpful in featured pictures candidates, or when the image is being used as a thumbnail illustration in an article, but not helpful when the image is being used to illustrate a subtopic.
Not sure how best to adapt the syntax, but maybe allowing something like this:
[[Australia|[[Image:Australian flag.svg]]]]
This would leave open the possibility of having an image be part of a string that is linked.
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=539
Rob Church
Thanks. I gather from that the functionality to do this has been around since 2004. It was reinvented in February 2005. Any idea why it didn't make the main branch?
Steve
On 5/15/06, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks. I gather from that the functionality to do this has been around since 2004. It was reinvented in February 2005. Any idea why it didn't make the main branch?
Possibly (if there's a patch I haven't looked) it wasn't sufficiently well coded?
Rob Church
On 15/05/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
Thanks. I gather from that the functionality to do this has been around since 2004. It was reinvented in February 2005. Any idea why it didn't make the main branch?
It seems there was problems with not linking to the image page, so image license information was not shown and they were afraid of GFDL problems. The first idea i had to solve that was to show a text similar of the redirected pages. "You've been redirected through Image:Foo. [[See Image info]]" On a reread Magnus Manske suggered so (see #18) but was forgotten. Would be any problem with that approach?
Comment #18 talks about 'images with external (or interwiki) targets' but we're not supposed of having to support it, are we? Redirect doesn't work with interwiki targets, neither.
Ok, that's not really an argument for not supporting it. A possible trick to have interwiki-redirects within wikis. Use http://xx.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ArticlePage&redirectedfrom=en:... So a referer can be set from the URL. It even allows setting the referer from links from external webs. A cleaner url would be http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArticlePage?redirectedfrom=en:Image:Article_Ico....
Note that'd like having http://xx.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArticlePage?printable=yes on the 'Printable version' link, not the dirty one (it already works). When you print the article, it usually gets the URL on the top/bottom of the page, and users would 'get' easier if we showed the easy one.
Platonides
On 5/15/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
It seems there was problems with not linking to the image page, so image license information was not shown and they were afraid of GFDL problems. The first idea i had to solve that was to show a text similar of the redirected pages. "You've been redirected through Image:Foo. [[See Image info]]" On a reread Magnus Manske suggered so (see #18) but was forgotten. Would be any problem with that approach?
I understand this problem, but I really don't see why that should prevent implementation of this technical enhancement. Sure, people will have to come up with other ways to make sure the image info is accessible. But in the case of the main page linking to an article which has the image available, not a big issue.
I do like Manske's suggested approach.
Steve
On 5/15/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
It seems there was problems with not linking to the image page, so image license information was not shown and they were afraid of GFDL problems. The first idea i had to solve that was to show a text similar of the redirected pages. "You've been redirected through Image:Foo. [[See Image info]]" On a reread Magnus Manske suggered so (see #18) but was forgotten. Would be any problem with that approach?
Not just GFDL. Most free content licenses require attribution to be provided.
We've previous received complaints from copyright holders when their CC-BY-SA-2.0 content was copied from commons to en (for protection) without attribution data.
Most licenses require us to provide adequate attribution in a manner which is standard for our format. It would be highly inadvisable to make attribution on the main page less accessible (causing copyright complaints from people over those) or more accessible (providing basis for complaints elsewhere in the Wiki).
I believe the the Mangus Manske suggestion would make attribution data far too obscured.
On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
Not just GFDL. Most free content licenses require attribution to be provided.
We've previous received complaints from copyright holders when their CC-BY-SA-2.0 content was copied from commons to en (for protection) without attribution data.
Most licenses require us to provide adequate attribution in a manner which is standard for our format. It would be highly inadvisable to make attribution on the main page less accessible (causing copyright complaints from people over those) or more accessible (providing basis for complaints elsewhere in the Wiki).
I believe the the Mangus Manske suggestion would make attribution data far too obscured.
Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available, and what people actually want when they click on the image. I think if people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?
So, it makes sense that the information is available to anyone who goes out of their way to look for it - but I don't see the value in forcing it down people's throats, when they're actually trying to get more information on a topic, and aren't per se interested in the image.
Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.
Australia (You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith) Australia is a great country...
etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data in a readily packaged form. On many images, there are actually several authors (due to touch ups etc). And there's no obvious way of working out mechanically who actually "created" the image.
Steve
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available, and what people actually want when they click on the image. I think if people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?
I do not believe an alt tag would be sufficient.
We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and potentially the portals. Do you agree?
So, it makes sense that the information is available to anyone who goes out of their way to look for it - but I don't see the value in forcing it down people's throats, when they're actually trying to get more information on a topic, and aren't per se interested in the image.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient and whom want an inline byline. But providing one runs the risk of just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide historical data on GFDLed images). Hiding it further is just not going to fly.
Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.
Australia (You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith) Australia is a great country... etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data in a readily packaged form.
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
On many images, there are actually several authors (due to touch ups etc). And there's no obvious way of working out mechanically who actually "created" the image.
Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long list of copyright holders.
On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
Agree.
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and potentially the portals. Do you agree?
Also, stubs, flag icons (for languages and so on), and icons in general I suppose. For example, [[WP:GA]] - but that may be included in "portals". Occasionally in an article it may be useful. See [[Château de Chambord]] - you could make an argument that the portraits down the left hand side would be useful as links to [[François I]] and so forth.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
Well, you have to draw the line somewhere. We could watermark the author's name on the image if it was that important. We could state it under the image (Photo credit: JoeSmith). Practicality and common sense has to come into it somewhere.
Following on Magnus' idea, we could also recopy the image to the top of this redirected page, and if you click on *that* image, you would get the normal image page.
There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient and whom want an inline byline. But providing one runs the risk of just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide historical data on GFDLed images). Hiding it further is just not going to fly.
Well, there are people that argue that linking to other subjects through images would be really handy, more so than the attribution issues. How compelling are each sides' arguments? What are the arguments? Do they stand up?
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
It would be handy if we do at any stage want to do some kind of inline attribution. We have no means to do that currently.
Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long list of copyright holders.
Dunno. Does the uploader of an image get any credit for having found it? Does someone who takes an image created by another WIkipedian, loads it into Picasa and presses "I'm feeling lucky" get any credit?
Steve
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available, and what people actually want when they click on the image. I think if people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?
I do not believe an alt tag would be sufficient.
We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
It's publicly available. They can ask if they are unsure or doesn't trust on wikis. What's the problem?
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases
because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
We have a good system for images but we also wanna images for other things! Would be better a JS popup saying "What did you want? a) See the article b) See the image" ??
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
potentially the portals. Do you agree?
I disagree. It's only going to be used there but it could be used anywhere. We must be aware of that.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
Is really people going to care? They often say "uploaded from english wikipedia X" and X is an article!! Having one or two steps won't be a difference for them. They're used to right-click and catch. Those who care will find it easy :)
There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient and whom want an inline byline. But providing one runs the risk of just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide historical data on GFDLed images). Hiding it further is just not going to fly.
Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.
Australia (You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith) Australia is a great country... etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data in a readily packaged form.
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
That's not the system. I was talking about a link *to the real image page*. It's like articles when disambiguation is on "title (disambiguation)". It makes no sense showing "image by John", when John only added a transparent background of an image uploaded by Mike. And it doesn't make sens showing "image by Mike" because he uploaded it from X wikipedia. An on that wikipedia it was uploaded from Susan, who got it from the NASA webpage an so it's on the public domain :D
On 5/15/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
It's publicly available. They can ask if they are unsure or doesn't trust on wikis. What's the problem?
There is no problem, really. The point I was making is that we don't want to make it any *less* accessable because it can be shown that the people who want and need the information already have some difficulity finding it. It's not exactly obvious that the image is clickable at all. In any case, we can not hide the attribution information.
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
We have a good system for images but we also wanna images for other things! Would be better a JS popup saying "What did you want? a) See the article b) See the image" ??
You're making an argument that makes sense on the main page and possibly portals here, but not articles. And a JS popup?? I hope you're joking.
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
potentially the portals. Do you agree?
I disagree. It's only going to be used there but it could be used anywhere. We must be aware of that.
A feature that lets people hide the attribution page and as a result violate our image licensing obligations can not be accepted, we must be aware of that.
We need to know all the expected use cases so that we can produce a solution which preserves our obligations, avoids causing attribution problems elsewhere, and meets our needs. So please detail where you can see 'linkable images' being used outside of the main page.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
Is really people going to care? They often say "uploaded from english wikipedia X" and X is an article!! Having one or two steps won't be a difference for them. They're used to right-click and catch. Those who care will find it easy :)
I'm not following you. If we fail to provide attribution in a clear, consistent, and accessable manner then we have no right to distribute the image at all.
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
That's not the system. I was talking about a link *to the real image page*. It's like articles when disambiguation is on "title (disambiguation)". It makes no sense showing "image by John", when John only added a transparent background of an image uploaded by Mike. And it doesn't make sens showing "image by Mike" because he uploaded it from X wikipedia. An on that wikipedia it was uploaded from Susan, who got it from the NASA webpage an so it's on the public domain :D
Our current system covers the situation you've proposed just fine. The problem of lacking concise machine readable attribution is only a problem for the proposal that makes the image look like a redirect. We already have perfectly good attribution for other purposes: the image page.
The reason I tried to split out the 'main/portal' page cases is because another possible solution would be to create an image tag flag which allowed you to specify a link target for the image but placed a small 'image credits' link right below the image which takes you to the image page.
We could achieve something like that by using an image caption, but captions are realestate intensive.
I'm somewhat concerned that by doing so we would make image attribution on the main/portal pages more accessable than on the rest of the site.
On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
There is no problem, really. The point I was making is that we don't want to make it any *less* accessable because it can be shown that the people who want and need the information already have some difficulity finding it. It's not exactly obvious that the image is clickable at all. In any case, we can not hide the attribution information.
Heh, ok, so people who are looking to follow the link to another article click and get the wrong behaviour. People actually looking for the image info don't think of clicking. Everyone loses!
Would it be possible, on each and every page, to have a "Image credits" link which would provide links to the attribution page of every image used on that page, no matter how it was used? Then professionals would know to always click on that same "Image credits" link placed in the bottom corner, for example.
A feature that lets people hide the attribution page and as a result violate our image licensing obligations can not be accepted, we must be aware of that.
Ahem, everyone, including us, violates our licenses left, right and centre.
We need to know all the expected use cases so that we can produce a solution which preserves our obligations, avoids causing attribution problems elsewhere, and meets our needs. So please detail where you can see 'linkable images' being used outside of the main page.
Already did. I'm sure there are other uses too.
I'm not following you. If we fail to provide attribution in a clear, consistent, and accessable manner then we have no right to distribute the image at all.
Our current system covers the situation you've proposed just fine. The problem of lacking concise machine readable attribution is only a problem for the proposal that makes the image look like a redirect.
It'd also be handy for doing user image galleries. Currently all uploads are treated as belong to you.
The reason I tried to split out the 'main/portal' page cases is because another possible solution would be to create an image tag flag which allowed you to specify a link target for the image but placed a small 'image credits' link right below the image which takes you to the image page.
Yep, that's feasible.
We could achieve something like that by using an image caption, but captions are realestate intensive.
Make them short then :) "cred"? "IMG" ?
Steve
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Ahem, everyone, including us, violates our licenses left, right and centre.
A point here since it looks like we're in agreement otherwise..
We're not talking about "our licenses" we're talking about the licenses of the photographers whos work we distribute. The vast majority of the images on wikipedia (well, en at least) were not created by a Wikipedia editor.
I've had 100% success with takedown notices of sites infringing on my image copyrights with little difficulty. ... Even if that weren't the case, it still wouldn't excuse Wikipedia from doing something which is potentially in violation.
That was mostly an aside, it seems that we agree some sort of small credits link (I think I'd prefer 'image details' because another common question is 'can I get a larger version of the image on foo') is conceptually acceptable. Has anyone mocked this up yet and considered all the other impacts (skin compatibility, browser compatibility, accessability by the disabled)?
"Gregory Maxwell" wrote:
On 5/15/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
It's publicly available. They can ask if they are unsure or doesn't trust on wikis. What's the problem?
There is no problem, really. The point I was making is that we don't want to make it any *less* accessable because it can be shown that the people who want and need the information already have some difficulity finding it. It's not exactly obvious that the image is clickable at all. In any case, we can not hide the attribution information.
We're not hiding it.The link is right there, on the top. But it's not supposed to be what user wanted when he clicked, so it's not <strong><blink>.
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
We have a good system for images but we also wanna images for other things! Would be better a JS popup saying "What did you want? a) See the article b) See the image" ??
You're making an argument that makes sense on the main page and possibly portals here, but not articles. And a JS popup?? I hope you're joking.
I think your double ?? are as explaining as mine :D
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and
potentially the portals. Do you agree?
I disagree. It's only going to be used there but it could be used anywhere. We must be aware of that.
A feature that lets people hide the attribution page and as a result violate our image licensing obligations can not be accepted, we must be aware of that.
It's not hiding. You could also say that if i use a redirect on page A to A (city), i'm violating © because A has a history so A should say "See history for a list of those who contributed to A (city) on this name. Now if what you wanted is the article goto [[A (city)]]." I don't see anywhere that "our image licensing obligations" say that "images must be linked to a page where its license is described". Our obligations are to provide accurate license information.
We need to know all the expected use cases so that we can produce a solution which preserves our obligations, avoids causing attribution problems elsewhere, and meets our needs. So please detail where you can see 'linkable images' being used outside of the main page.
It shouldn't be used, but that's a policy issue. Newbie Smith creates and account and starts tricking with wiki-code. Or i could have my signature with a thumbnail of my face so whe it's clicked they go to my user page.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
Is really people going to care? They often say "uploaded from english wikipedia X" and X is an article!! Having one or two steps won't be a difference for them. They're used to right-click and catch. Those who care will find it easy :)
I'm not following you. If we fail to provide attribution in a clear, consistent, and accessable manner then we have no right to distribute the image at all.
Well, that it doesn't really matter at all. There're dumbs everywhere. I think most of the problem is created by ourselves.
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
That's not the system. I was talking about a link *to the real image page*. It's like articles when disambiguation is on "title (disambiguation)". It makes no sense showing "image by John", when John only added a transparent background of an image uploaded by Mike. And it doesn't make sens showing "image by Mike" because he uploaded it from X wikipedia. An on that wikipedia it was uploaded from Susan, who got it from the NASA webpage an so it's on the public domain :D
Our current system covers the situation you've proposed just fine. The problem of lacking concise machine readable attribution is only a problem for the proposal that makes the image look like a redirect. We already have perfectly good attribution for other purposes: the image page.
I know. I'm saying that the text should only point to that image page.
The reason I tried to split out the 'main/portal' page cases is because another possible solution would be to create an image tag flag which allowed you to specify a link target for the image but placed a small 'image credits' link right below the image which takes you to the image page.
We could achieve something like that by using an image caption, but captions are realestate intensive.
I'm somewhat concerned that by doing so we would make image attribution on the main/portal pages more accessable than on the rest of the site.
We could more explicity say that on those links below that nobody cares of. Did you notice that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights doesn't even say that the image © for a specific image can be know by going to its image page, and that you arrivve there if you click on it? Well, we can change it now so we don't need to add the second part ;)
On 5/15/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
We need to know all the expected use cases so that we can produce a solution which preserves our obligations, avoids causing attribution problems elsewhere, and meets our needs. So please detail where you can see 'linkable images' being used outside of the main page.
I found another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art
It would be intuitive to the reader that clicking the images at the bottom would take you to pages for the respective artists.
Steve
Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can all agree with.
There are already a multitude of 'tags' that go on the image tag, such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say, [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it, just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace links in this format with a single colon, as you do for transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE* instead for information about this image.
Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked - we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen - that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!
Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option would really simplify things for users.
On May 15, 2006, at 6:26 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
Could it be done in the ALT tag? It seems to me that there is a mismatch between those who want attribution to be readily available, and what people actually want when they click on the image. I think if people actually want to know who created the image, it's pretty easy to find out. But honestly, have you ever wondered who made an image that you clicked on somewhere on the web? Why would you care?
I do not believe an alt tag would be sufficient.
We frequently receive requests from commercial publishers for image copyright information, even with how easily it is currently provided.
On *articles* I believe our behavior is ideal in almost all cases because we do exactly what is expected: we provide an enlarged copy of the image. Most commercial news sites have the same behavior.
As far as I can tell, the problem is limited to the main page and potentially the portals. Do you agree?
So, it makes sense that the information is available to anyone who goes out of their way to look for it - but I don't see the value in forcing it down people's throats, when they're actually trying to get more information on a topic, and aren't per se interested in the image.
We can't require people to 'go out of their way to look for it'. We need to provided attribution in roughly the same manner as we do for the articles, and we need to make it reasonably accessible.
There are people who argue that our current behavior is insufficient and whom want an inline byline. But providing one runs the risk of just creating a greater mess (article authors don't get inline bylines, multiple editor images, and the requirements to provide historical data on GFDLed images). Hiding it further is just not going to fly.
Magnus' suggestion would actually be the most visible, especially if the attribution information was displayed directly on the page.
Australia (You clicked on [Australian flag.svg], created by Jim Smith) Australia is a great country... etc. The real problem is that we don't actually have attribution data in a readily packaged form.
Should read 'one of the problems with that proposal'. :) What we currently do is fine, there is no great need to have an easily machine readable copyright holder with our current framework.
On many images, there are actually several authors (due to touch ups etc). And there's no obvious way of working out mechanically who actually "created" the image.
Many? Well.. certainly not a majority. I would assume that ones with multiple editors are almost as common as ones with multiple copyright holders ... which would put us back in the same boat of having a long list of copyright holders. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can all agree with.
There are already a multitude of 'tags' that go on the image tag, such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say, [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it, just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace links in this format with a single colon, as you do for transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE* instead for information about this image.
I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.
A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.
Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
- we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!
Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they expect the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a description of the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page, but no browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.
Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option would really simplify things for users.
Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something that everyone will find acceptable.
For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a few their free images on their main page.
I understand you're problem, and I understand you are not talking about what I'm talking about. I am talking about free icons, the ICONS that are used as, well, icons - look up icons on the very 'wikipedia' we're discussing; they are meant to represent something. When you click the 'harddrive' icon on you're computer, you expect to open you're harddrive, not view information about the harddrive icon. I don't think that normal images should use this feature, or perhaps even have the option - maybe we need a new Icon: namespace just for free-domain-released icons like the crystal ones, that can be substituted, and LINKED WITH. I don't care what license the icons in the crystal pack have, and I'm sure no users do either - they just want to get to their destination. I know you would get pissed if you're beautiful picture or drawing of X were just passed on by, without any attribution - fine. That sort of thing shouldn't be linked ever for any reason that I see - I'm talking about images BUILT for the PURPOSE of acting as an ICON representing and pointing to something else. Right?
On May 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can all agree with.
There are already a multitude of 'tags' that go on the image tag, such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say, [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it, just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace links in this format with a single colon, as you do for transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE* instead for information about this image.
I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.
A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.
Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
- we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!
Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they expect the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a description of the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page, but no browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.
Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option would really simplify things for users.
Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something that everyone will find acceptable.
For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a few their free images on their main page. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Maybe the simplest idea would be to add, at the end of the history, the list of all pictures included in the article, with their info, licence, author etc. I don't think this could be a problem to make, and I find it quite logic to see all authors at the same place (Why pictures authors should be separated from text authors?)
Plyd
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
I understand you're problem, and I understand you are not talking about what I'm talking about. I am talking about free icons, the ICONS that are used as, well, icons - look up icons on the very 'wikipedia' we're discussing; they are meant to represent something. When you click the 'harddrive' icon on you're computer, you expect to open you're harddrive, not view information about the harddrive icon. I don't think that normal images should use this feature, or perhaps even have the option - maybe we need a new Icon: namespace just for free-domain-released icons like the crystal ones, that can be substituted, and LINKED WITH. I don't care what license the icons in the crystal pack have, and I'm sure no users do either - they just want to get to their destination. I know you would get pissed if you're beautiful picture or drawing of X were just passed on by, without any attribution - fine. That sort of thing shouldn't be linked ever for any reason that I see - I'm talking about images BUILT for the PURPOSE of acting as an ICON representing and pointing to something else. Right?
On May 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can all agree with.
There are already a multitude of 'tags' that go on the image tag, such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say, [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it, just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main-namespace links in this format with a single colon, as you do for transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE* instead for information about this image.
I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.
A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.
Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
- we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!
Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they expect the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a description of the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page, but no browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.
Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option would really simplify things for users.
Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something that everyone will find acceptable.
For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a few their free images on their main page. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Oh, really not a bad idea! I think it should be added to the contributors section thing - just take the uploader of the latest version of the image, and add it to the current 'credits' section of the footer.
On May 15, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Plyd wrote:
Maybe the simplest idea would be to add, at the end of the history, the list of all pictures included in the article, with their info, licence, author etc. I don't think this could be a problem to make, and I find it quite logic to see all authors at the same place (Why pictures authors should be separated from text authors?)
Plyd
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
I understand you're problem, and I understand you are not talking about what I'm talking about. I am talking about free icons, the ICONS that are used as, well, icons - look up icons on the very 'wikipedia' we're discussing; they are meant to represent something. When you click the 'harddrive' icon on you're computer, you expect to open you're harddrive, not view information about the harddrive icon. I don't think that normal images should use this feature, or perhaps even have the option - maybe we need a new Icon: namespace just for free-domain-released icons like the crystal ones, that can be substituted, and LINKED WITH. I don't care what license the icons in the crystal pack have, and I'm sure no users do either - they just want to get to their destination. I know you would get pissed if you're beautiful picture or drawing of X were just passed on by, without any attribution - fine. That sort of thing shouldn't be linked ever for any reason that I see - I'm talking about images BUILT for the PURPOSE of acting as an ICON representing and pointing to something else. Right?
On May 15, 2006, at 8:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Reply from me, I BELIEVE I have a O.K. solution to this that we can all agree with.
There are already a multitude of 'tags' that go on the image tag, such as making it a thumb, the pixel width, an alt tag, things like that - why not add a 'link tag'? If you supply, say, [[Image:Chicago_icon|48px|:Chicago]] - then the image Image:Chicago_icon would appear, liked to [[Chicago]]. To parse it, just catch any line starting with a colon (just prefix main- namespace links in this format with a single colon, as you do for transclusion). Does anybody see the logic in this? And, for links of this format, do something similar to the redirect - put a notice where redirects go that this image pointed you *here*, go *HERE* instead for information about this image.
I find the redirect notice notion highly distasteful. Any other site with a behavior like that would get a takedown notice from me explaining that the attribution was effectively hidden.
A small 'image credit' or 'image details' link below (or in an adjustable position) would, however, be acceptable.
Also, perhaps put the attribution in the alt-tag for images so linked
- we could make attribution a separate field on the upload screen -
that would also even help with the proposed upload-to-commons thing!
Alt text will goof up people using screen readers because they expect the alt text to be an alternative to the image (i.e. a description of the image) as per the HTML standards. In the past it has also been suggested that the longdesc attribute be set to the image page, but no browsers that I'm aware of make longdesc available in any case.
Even if not the attribution thing, I really think a link-to option would really simplify things for users.
Yes it would be useful. So lets figure out how to make something that everyone will find acceptable.
For a little more fodder for the discussion is that several of the non-english wikipedias (fr for their portals icons and de for their featured article image) already fail to provide attribution for a few their free images on their main page. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Oh, really not a bad idea! I think it should be added to the contributors section thing - just take the uploader of the latest version of the image, and add it to the current 'credits' section of the footer.
Giving the uploader credit could be very misleading, especially if all they've done is move an image from de to commons, for example.
Steve
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable ecable@avxw.com wrote:
Oh, really not a bad idea! I think it should be added to the contributors section thing - just take the uploader of the latest version of the image, and add it to the current 'credits' section of the footer.
Giving the uploader credit could be very misleading, especially if all they've done is move an image from de to commons, for example.
The idea was to put the whole description the uploader gave (licence, photographer, etc.) as well as it's given on the image page, maybe smaller, or not.
Plyd
Plyd wrote:
On 5/15/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/15/06, Elliott F. Cable wrote:
Oh, really not a bad idea! I think it should be added to the contributors section thing - just take the uploader of the latest version of the image, and add it to the current 'credits' section of the footer.
Giving the uploader credit could be very misleading, especially if all they've done is move an image from de to commons, for example.
The idea was to put the whole description the uploader gave (licence, photographer, etc.) as well as it's given on the image page, maybe smaller, or not.
Plyd
We could have at the bottom of the history page: The folllowing images are used ont his page. Please refer to its description page for seeing its author and license.
We're neither showing the templates authors nor to the guy who created that category. Attribution is given per-object. Then you could have a program to show them all with all the authors (there's some that does that, don't remember where, perhaps Magnus's?
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org