I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and Special:Export:
* Import updates categories etc * Imports are logged and reviewable in Special:Log/import * Imported pages also get a null edit in the history indicating the import and its source * Export is fixed up to allow fetching history for shorter pages, while still aborting to avoid bogging down the servers on longer pages (currently set to a cutoff of 100 edits) * Transwiki import allows selecting the import-with-history
Wikis wishing transwiki import capability should let us know which wikis they want to be able to import directly from (for instance, from a wikipedia -> wiktionary) and we can enable it.
Please pass this notice on to wikis where it will be of interest.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 6/28/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and Special:Export:
How does this work? Can only admins do it? I would mostly be interested in moving images from the various Wikipedias to Commons.
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and Special:Export:
How does this work? Can only admins do it?
It's limited to admins, yes. If desired we could make it a separate group, assignable separately from sysophood.
A set of source wikis is defined (currently in the site configuration, so not settable by sysops directly) from which pages can be nicked.
There's also the ability to upload XML files saved manually from Special:Export on another wiki; we have this disabled normally (since you can fake past edits to anyone else's name), but sometimes enable it for particular wikis that are migrating from a test location offsite.
I would mostly be interested in moving images from the various Wikipedias to Commons.
Images aren't supported yet, sorry. :(
But that could be added; I've got some related support in the OAI thingy which could be adapted.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 6/28/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I would mostly be interested in moving images from the various Wikipedias to Commons.
Images aren't supported yet, sorry. :(
But that could be added; I've got some related support in the OAI thingy which could be adapted.
Ah, pity. Also, what's OAI?
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
Steve
On 6/28/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
As the feature was formerly implemented, at least, you downloaded an XML file to your hard drive with Special:Export and then uploaded it with Special:Import, which basically meant that the target accepted your upload without question and you could rewrite page history. If this is no longer the case, then it would be worth considering easier interwiki moves, at least.
But do we really want *interwiki* page-move vandalism? You'd have to go to the target to revert it, if it's restricted to autoconfirmed like normal moves you possibly wouldn't be able to move it back until SUL, if it's not restricted then it's even easier than normal page-move vandalism, etc. So restricting it to admins is a good idea, until we get an intermediate "trusted" group of some kind.
On 6/28/06, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
The case is that if someone is 'trusted' it's likely he will be an admin.
In theory. In practice, there are a lot of people who are trustworthy enough to get rollback, Special:Patrol rights, the right to edit some extra pages (i.e., add a third possible level of protection), and similar tweaks, but who wouldn't necessarily be trusted to have the effectively permanent right to, e.g., block people indefinitely. An intermediate group would be especially valuable on enwiki, where admins have to step really grossly out of line to be accountable for their actions (some wikis have a reconfirmation scheme that makes admins more accountable to the general populace of the wiki, for good or for bad).
On 28/06/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/28/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I would mostly be interested in moving images from the various Wikipedias to Commons.
Images aren't supported yet, sorry. :(
But that could be added; I've got some related support in the OAI thingy which could be adapted.
Ah, pity. Also, what's OAI?
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/OAI/
Take a look and make an educated guess.
Rob Church
Steve Bennett wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php
Or http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php for a more organized effort.
Magnus
On 6/28/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php
Or http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php for a more organized effort.
Magnus
You should really modify the default edit summaries on those to link back to the tools. Otherwise they won't ever be very widely used.
Simetrical schrieb:
On 6/28/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php
Or http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php for a more organized effort.
Magnus
You should really modify the default edit summaries on those to link back to the tools. Otherwise they won't ever be very widely used.
Nice idea, done.
Now I'm waiting for people to complain about the spam ;-)
Magnus
On 6/29/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Now I'm waiting for people to complain about the spam ;-)
Nah, it's what everyone does (at least on enwiki, don't blame me if they yell at you on de :P). No one would know about Lupin's popups or AWB or VandalProof if they didn't add a plug to default edit summaries.
On 6/30/06, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/29/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Now I'm waiting for people to complain about the spam ;-)
Nah, it's what everyone does (at least on enwiki, don't blame me if they yell at you on de :P). No one would know about Lupin's popups or AWB or VandalProof if they didn't add a plug to default edit summaries.
IMHO it's a good practice. It's not like you're putting "transwikied image. Buy Coke!" as the description.
Steve
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:30:52AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
IMHO it's a good practice. It's not like you're putting "transwikied image. Buy Coke!" as the description.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola
Cheers, -- jra
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point, rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up later.
I have some support for this position :) see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
cheers, Brianna en.wp,commons:User:pfctdayelise
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point, rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up later.
I have some support for this position :) see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
Suggestion: 1. Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a {{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag 2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description 3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease tag has been removed on commons
Magnus
On 29/06/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point, rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up later.
I have some support for this position :) see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
Suggestion:
- Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a
{{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag 2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description 3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease tag has been removed on commons
All I can say to that is "please for the love of God no". People should take responsibility for verifying the source if they are so eager to have it on Commons. Commons admins have more than enough to do...and this method would just cause unnecessary duplication. Just verify it in the first place, in the first place it was uploaded! What is the rush? Commons isn't going anywhere. Let's take the time to get at least this right, 'cause God knows Commons has enough copyvios without needing to import old ones.
Brianna
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Magnus Manske magnus.manske@web.de wrote:
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
On 29/06/06, Steve Bennett stevage@gmail.com wrote:
I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone...
It doesn't need to be restricted, but it shouldn't be automatic. Many images on local WPs have dodgy source/licensing and moving them to the Commons is a very good opportunity to examine them at that point, rather than just transfer them to Commons for the problem to come up later.
I have some support for this position :) see http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/2006-May/000222.html .
Suggestion:
- Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a
{{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag 2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description 3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease tag has been removed on commons
All I can say to that is "please for the love of God no". People should take responsibility for verifying the source if they are so eager to have it on Commons. Commons admins have more than enough to do...and this method would just cause unnecessary duplication. Just verify it in the first place, in the first place it was uploaded! What is the rush? Commons isn't going anywhere. Let's take the time to get at least this right, 'cause God knows Commons has enough copyvios without needing to import old ones.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding; I didn't propose to "dump everything into commons on sight", but to ease the transition for both parties (if there are indeed two, and not just the big happy wikimedia family;-)
IMHO my suggestion makes it easy for the wikipedia "party" to transfer an image believed to be suitable to commons, easy for the commons "party" to find such an image (via template and included category), easy to approve (remove the template) or disapprove (delete), and again for the wikipedia "party" to finalize the move (delete if approved on commons).
As for "verifying the source" - a picture of a building with "took this myself, GFDL" is as easy/hard to verify for someone on wikipedia as it is for someone on commons - either believe it or ask the original uploader yet again (pointless IMHO). Of course, obvious non-free image should not be uploaded to the commons in the first place.
Finally, when it comes to judgement about the "freeness" of an image, I would imagine that people from commons have more experience with that kind of thing than the average wikipedia person. OTOH,a wikipedia user might know the original uploader and place better judgement on wether his/her claims of GFDL etc. are likely or not.
Magnus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brion Vibber schrieb:
I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and Special:Export:
- Import updates categories etc
- Imports are logged and reviewable in Special:Log/import
- Imported pages also get a null edit in the history indicating the import and
its source
- Export is fixed up to allow fetching history for shorter pages, while still
aborting to avoid bogging down the servers on longer pages (currently set to a cutoff of 100 edits)
- Transwiki import allows selecting the import-with-history
Thanks for the new features.
But a question: Is it possible to enable the import-function inside a wiki to duplicate an article?
This would be helpful for splitting articles into two articles with the effect that the history is duplicated too and the GFDL is preserved in both articles.
The other way is with a loop way over another wiki:
e.g. - - deWP:test (transwiki) deWikt:test - - deWikt:test (move) deWikt:new_test - - deWikt:new_test (transwiki) deWP:new_test
But this way is not very elegant and the help of an deWikt-admin is needed.
Raymond.
On 03/07/06, Raimond Spekking raimond.spekking@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Brion Vibber schrieb:
I've patched up some old problems with Special:Import and
Special:Export:
- Import updates categories etc
- Imports are logged and reviewable in Special:Log/import
- Imported pages also get a null edit in the history indicating the
import and
its source
- Export is fixed up to allow fetching history for shorter pages, while
still
aborting to avoid bogging down the servers on longer pages (currently
set to a
cutoff of 100 edits)
- Transwiki import allows selecting the import-with-history
Thanks for the new features.
But a question: Is it possible to enable the import-function inside a wiki to duplicate an article?
This would be helpful for splitting articles into two articles with the effect that the history is duplicated too and the GFDL is preserved in both articles.
The other way is with a loop way over another wiki:
e.g.
- deWP:test (transwiki) deWikt:test
- deWikt:test (move) deWikt:new_test
- deWikt:new_test (transwiki) deWP:new_test
But this way is not very elegant and the help of an deWikt-admin is needed.
Raymond. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEqYawp+qUcbEr56YRAk59AJsHSYMcqQQIzucwxkFiiJ01ALAUdgCgxKYW IcgkU+OKaFZSFW7tEoNeoTQ= =sySM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
At en.wiktionary, imports go now directly into our Transwiki: namespace. Very useful. Less useful is that imports are restricted to sysops. Usually, it is the Wikipedians who volunteer for doing the transwikis, so they should actually have access to Special:Import, not the Wiktionary sysops.
Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org