Berthold Gabel Bgabel@wikivoyage-ev.org
In the "Lounge" of Wikivoyage-de I read that the migration will start in a few days, but the database "shared" will not be transferred to the server of the WMF. This I note: "Halloween" is over, and "Carnival" is yet to come. That can not be a serious idea to start anew Wikivoyage in a massive disaster. Under these conditions, a collaboration from the beginning makes no fun. Was that the intention?
Berthold
Hi Berthold,
the short version:
1) All files will continue to be accessible via wikivoyage-old.org. For how long only depends on Wikivoyage e.V. but Roland suggested multiple months would not be a problem.
2) Files need to be transferred by the community because - not all files may be eligible for Commons due to its licensing policies (freedom of panorama standards and other copyright specifics). Some files may be eligible under the new EDP that is being developed, but then they would have to be uploaded to the local wiki. - licensing and description templates as well as categories may need to be updated to work on Commons. - files should generally be checked for copyright issues, we need to sort out different standards and practices for things like email permissions to grant the rights to use an image, and so on.
Our legal department has strong reservations about a bulk transfer, and I have strong reservations from a community perspective. This is not just Wikivoyage being hosted by Wikimedia, this is Wikivoyage becoming a Wikimedia project. That means taking the time to do this properly.
Technically it is easy for anyone to do a bulk transfer. The reason this hasn't happened is precisely that people want to take the time to do it right.
If people are really worried about having red links, we can defer the migration date until more files have been transferred. Technically there's nothing forcing us to do it next week. Hans however will have greatly reduced availability after that and we currently depend on him to produce the database dumps.
It continues to be my recommendation to live with the red links at launch, and to just make it a priority to do the files migration through November. We can help with tools advice/support, and I would not underestimate the Wikimedia community's ability to pull this off.
Erik
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:30:17 -0700, Erik Moeller wrote:
Hi Berthold,
the short version:
- All files will continue to be accessible via wikivoyage-old.org
[1]. For how long only depends on Wikivoyage e.V. but Roland suggested multiple months would not be a problem.
- Files need to be transferred by the community because
- not all files may be eligible for Commons due to its licensing
policies (freedom of panorama standards and other copyright specifics). Some files may be eligible under the new EDP that is being developed, but then they would have to be uploaded to the local wiki.
- licensing and description templates as well as categories may need
to be updated to work on Commons.
- files should generally be checked for copyright issues, we need to
sort out different standards and practices for things like email permissions to grant the rights to use an image, and so on.
Our legal department has strong reservations about a bulk transfer, and I have strong reservations from a community perspective. This is not just Wikivoyage being hosted by Wikimedia, this is Wikivoyage becoming a Wikimedia project. That means taking the time to do this properly.
Technically it is easy for anyone to do a bulk transfer. The reason this hasnt happened is precisely that people want to take the time to do it right.
If people are really worried about having red links, we can defer the migration date until more files have been transferred. Technically theres nothing forcing us to do it next week. Hans however will have greatly reduced availability after that and we currently depend on him to produce the database dumps.
It continues to be my recommendation to live with the red links at launch, and to just make it a priority to do the files migration through November. We can help with tools advice/support, and I would not underestimate the Wikimedia communitys ability to pull this off.
Erik
Hi Erik,
I appreciate your responses and find them very useful. I do not think there is any community decision taken at this point, we are still discussing the options, but it is already clear that the lack of proper notification is a problem. For instance, apparently, the Swedish Wikivoyage community had no idea of the imminent transfer, and even refused to grant a bot flag needed for the transfer (which of course they did after learning what is going on). Is it possible to have somebody of the devs responsible on the migration present on the Task Force on Commons, in case there are questions about the migration process? This is not really a huge time consuption, but it would be good to have timely first-hand answers about possible options.
Cheers Yaroslav
Hi Erik,
to keep wts and shared repositories did not mean a bulk transfer to Commons. But it makes the media files directly accessible to the wikis.
Now there is a slow bulk transfer organized by some bots like MGA73bot. This bot is checking nothing -- no freedom of panorama standards -- nothing. What's the difference to make the repositories available at the WMF?
Surely, it's necessary to check the files before (but this was not done by the bot). Now it makes a huge effort to check the images twice -- at Wikivoyage and at Commons. The original place as noted by the bot will vanish after some days. No community member has the chance the check the original file to get the category, for instance. And we will have maybe about 40.000 ownerless objects at Commons.
The use of wts and shared repositories will give us enough time the check all carefully. And you can have a sitenotice that all images are subject of a check.
And I repeat by myself that red links are a catastrophe. Maybe we should give the advise at the wikis to go to wikivoyage-old.org to find the articles in complete. The red links will be a state for several months or years which could not be accepted by the communities and readers. And as compared to Wikitravel the readers will go Internet Brands. And others will laugh about the inability of the WMF staff to make the technical job. The Wikivoyage staff made a good job transferring all date from Wikitravel -- and you?
Please tell your legal department that is more important to have a good and and a big community than having strong reservations. And they think only about media files. What about the Textual information of the Wikis?
Therefore, I ask you again to transfer the repositories.
Yours Roland
----- Original Message ----- From: Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, November 3, 2012 8:30 pm Subject: Re: [Wikivoyage-l] Migration without the repository "shared" To: Wikivoyage Mailing List wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Hi Berthold,
the short version:
- All files will continue to be accessible via wikivoyage-old.org.
For how long only depends on Wikivoyage e.V. but Roland suggested multiple months would not be a problem.
- Files need to be transferred by the community because
- not all files may be eligible for Commons due to its licensing policies
(freedom of panorama standards and other copyright specifics). Some files may be eligible under the new EDP that is being developed, but then they would have to be uploaded to the local wiki.
- licensing and description templates as well as categories may need
to be updated to work on Commons.
- files should generally be checked for copyright issues, we need to sort
out different standards and practices for things like email permissions to grant the rights to use an image, and so on.
Our legal department has strong reservations about a bulk transfer, and I have strong reservations from a community perspective. This is not just Wikivoyage being hosted by Wikimedia, this is Wikivoyage becoming a Wikimedia project. That means taking the time to do this properly.
Technically it is easy for anyone to do a bulk transfer. The reason this hasn't happened is precisely that people want to take the time to do it right.
If people are really worried about having red links, we can defer the migration date until more files have been transferred. Technically there's nothing forcing us to do it next week. Hans however will have greatly reduced availability after that and we currently depend on him to produce the database dumps.
It continues to be my recommendation to live with the red links at launch, and to just make it a priority to do the files migration through November. We can help with tools advice/support, and I would not underestimate the Wikimedia community's ability to pull this off.
Erik
Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate _______________________________________________ Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
to keep wts and shared repositories did not mean a bulk transfer to Commons. But it makes the media files directly accessible to the wikis.
Just to clarify, what you are proposing is to essentially create wts.wikivoyage.org and shared.wikivoyage.org on the WMF side, import all content, keep them around until all files are transferred, and then shut them down.
My concerns with this are as follows: - it significantly increases the complexity of the setup on the wmf side purely for legacy purposes, beyond the level of technical resource commitment which we think is reasonable, - it creates unacceptable legal risks, - with images continuing to work, it risks delaying a resolution of these issues for a long time.
The two scenarios I am prepared to support at this time are - Scenario A: We delay the migration to create a more robust time window for transferring files to Commons, - Scenario B: We migrate the wikis next week at the risk of starting with lots of red links that have to be fixed during a cleanup period.
As a Wikipedian from the 2001 era I am perhaps unusually comfortable with the idea of things being fixed over time. ;-) Still, it would be good to have a community straw poll or some additional support for the decision between the two.
Erik
On Nov 3, 2012 1:56 PM, "Erik Moeller" erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
- Scenario B: We migrate the wikis next week at the risk of starting with
lots of red links that have to be fixed during a cleanup period.
And just because it is important to emphasize: under _no_ circumstances would the content be lost, wikivoyage-old.org would continue to work (with shared/wts being editable during the cleanup period for tagging purposes).
Erik
Hi Erik
to keep wts and shared repositories did not mean a bulk transfer to Commons. But it makes the media files directly accessible to the wikis.
Just to clarify, what you are proposing is to essentially create wts.wikivoyage.org and shared.wikivoyage.org on the WMF side, import all content, keep them around until all files are transferred, and then shut them down.
My concerns with this are as follows:
- it significantly increases the complexity of the setup on the wmf side
purely for legacy purposes, beyond the level of technical resource commitment which we think is reasonable,
I think not a really cause. We made the same at Wikivoyage association. Of course it is complex but we made it with one person.
- it creates unacceptable legal risks,
Normally the legal responsibility is at last to the author / uploader. Uploading images at Commons is a risk all the time. You cannot prevent uploading an image of the Atomium at Brusseles for instance but it is up to now not free of copyrights.
All, really all 30.000 images at wikivoyage/shared (not at wts) are checked by myself. It takes six years.
- with images continuing to work, it risks delaying a resolution of these
issues for a long time.
It will take a long time in any case.
The two scenarios I am prepared to support at this time are
- Scenario A: We delay the migration to create a more robust time window
for transferring files to Commons,
- Scenario B: We migrate the wikis next week at the risk of starting with
lots of red links that have to be fixed during a cleanup period.
Scenario A is an acceptable choice. So we can start the transfer with the power of all wikimedians, we can announce this at all project sites.
As a Wikipedian from the 2001 era I am perhaps unusually comfortable with the idea of things being fixed over time. ;-) Still, it would be good to have a community straw poll or some additional support for the decision between the two.
You should not make a poll you should start transferring the meta files.
Yours Roland
Roland Unger, 03/11/2012 21:24:
Surely, it's necessary to check the files before (but this was not done by the bot). Now it makes a huge effort to check the images twice -- at Wikivoyage and at Commons. The original place as noted by the bot will vanish after some days. No community member has the chance the check the original file to get the category, for instance. And we will have maybe about 40.000 ownerless objects at Commons.
Where does this number come from? We don't even have lists of images to check/import, as I noted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_t... (which by the way means that the work has not even started, except a few heroic users). My initial list found 20 thousands needed files, of which about 10 % is already identified as being on/from Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force/Wanted_files
Nemo
If we had the new travel site up and running would it not be easier to address the image issue? We will get more volunteers joining in and it will be easier to figure out what work needs to be done.
If we can keep wikivoyage-old.org up and running for a year that should give ample time to address this, no? Would be great to go live as a WMF site before X-mas.
James Heilman
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Roland Unger, 03/11/2012 21:24:
Surely, it's necessary to check the files before (but this
was not done by the bot). Now it makes a huge effort to check the images twice -- at Wikivoyage and at Commons. The original place as noted by the bot will vanish after some days. No community member has the chance the check the original file to get the category, for instance. And we will have maybe about 40.000 ownerless objects at Commons.
Where does this number come from? We don't even have lists of images to check/import, as I noted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_** Shared_transfer_task_force#**Commons_Notificationhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force#Commons_Notification(which by the way means that the work has not even started, except a few heroic users). My initial list found 20 thousands needed files, of which about 10 % is already identified as being on/from Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.** org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_**Shared_transfer_task_force/**Wanted_fileshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force/Wanted_files
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
IMO we should go live in "beta" with the links red next week. Once we are live more volunteers will come on board to fix things. 30,000-40,000 images is not an unmanageable amount. We can organize a "drive" to solve the problems and hopefully bring more people into the community like they do for GAs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_backlog...
James Heilman
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:59 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
If we had the new travel site up and running would it not be easier to address the image issue? We will get more volunteers joining in and it will be easier to figure out what work needs to be done.
If we can keep wikivoyage-old.org up and running for a year that should give ample time to address this, no? Would be great to go live as a WMF site before X-mas.
James Heilman
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Roland Unger, 03/11/2012 21:24:
Surely, it's necessary to check the files before (but this
was not done by the bot). Now it makes a huge effort to check the images twice -- at Wikivoyage and at Commons. The original place as noted by the bot will vanish after some days. No community member has the chance the check the original file to get the category, for instance. And we will have maybe about 40.000 ownerless objects at Commons.
Where does this number come from? We don't even have lists of images to check/import, as I noted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_** Shared_transfer_task_force#**Commons_Notificationhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force#Commons_Notification(which by the way means that the work has not even started, except a few heroic users). My initial list found 20 thousands needed files, of which about 10 % is already identified as being on/from Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.** org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_**Shared_transfer_task_force/**Wanted_fileshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force/Wanted_files
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
-- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Seems like a good idea to me.
Snowolf
On 04/11/2012 00:08, James Heilman wrote:
IMO we should go live in "beta" with the links red next week. Once we are live more volunteers will come on board to fix things. 30,000-40,000 images is not an unmanageable amount. We can organize a "drive" to solve the problems and hopefully bring more people into the community like they do for GAs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Good_articles/GAN_backlog...
James Heilman
Just as an impression: I understand not wanting to launch looking less than professional, but.... I suspect that red links encourage editing.
————————— Philippe Beaudette Director, Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
On Nov 3, 2012, at 3:59 PM, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
If we had the new travel site up and running would it not be easier to address the image issue? We will get more volunteers joining in and it will be easier to figure out what work needs to be done.
If we can keep wikivoyage-old.org up and running for a year that should give ample time to address this, no? Would be great to go live as a WMF site before X-mas.
James Heilman
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.comwrote:
Roland Unger, 03/11/2012 21:24:
Surely, it's necessary to check the files before (but this
was not done by the bot). Now it makes a huge effort to check the images twice -- at Wikivoyage and at Commons. The original place as noted by the bot will vanish after some days. No community member has the chance the check the original file to get the category, for instance. And we will have maybe about 40.000 ownerless objects at Commons.
Where does this number come from? We don't even have lists of images to check/import, as I noted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_** Shared_transfer_task_force#**Commons_Notificationhttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force#Commons_Notification(which by the way means that the work has not even started, except a few heroic users). My initial list found 20 thousands needed files, of which about 10 % is already identified as being on/from Commons <https://commons.wikimedia.** org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_**Shared_transfer_task_force/**Wanted_fileshttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_task_force/Wanted_files
Nemo
______________________________**_________________ Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
I think the first step in getting the images all fixed should be to stop uploading new files in the old place(s):
On 4 November 2012 00:29, Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think the first step in getting the images all fixed should be to stop uploading new files in the old place(s):
Can we not disable image uploading on the wikis to fix this?
They are not WMF-run.
Snowolf
On 04/11/2012 01:52, Thehelpfulone wrote:
On 4 November 2012 00:29, Daniel Zahn <dzahn@wikimedia.org mailto:dzahn@wikimedia.org> wrote:
I think the first step in getting the images all fixed should be to stop uploading new files in the old place(s): http://shared.wikivoyage.org/shared/Special:NewImages http://wts.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:NewFilesCan we not disable image uploading on the wikis to fix this?
-- Thehelpfulone http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
Stopping uploading images to the old places is not a problem. But people must be able to check and remove the images.
Yours Roland
On 4 November 2012 00:29, Daniel Zahn dzahn@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think the first step in getting the images all fixed should be to stop uploading new files in the old place(s):
Can we not disable image uploading on the wikis to fix this?
On Sat, 3 Nov 2012 17:29:22 -0700, Daniel Zahn wrote:
I think the first step in getting the images all fixed should be to stop uploading new files in the old place(s):
http://shared.wikivoyage.org/shared/Special:NewImages
http://wts.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:NewFiles
Wikivoyage-l mailing list Wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikivoyage-l
On WTS, from what I see, these are uploads of improved versions of existing files in preparation of the migration of the maps. These uploads are performed by administrators.
Cheers Yaroslav
Roland Unger, 03/11/2012 21:24:
Surely, it's necessary to check the files before (but this was not done by the bot). Now it makes a huge effort to check the images twice -- at Wikivoyage and at Commons. The original place as noted by the bot will vanish after some days. No community member has the chance the check the original file to get the category, for instance. And we will have maybe about 40.000 ownerless objects at Commons.
Where does this number come from? We don't even have lists of images to check/import, as I noted on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wikitravel_Shared_transfer_t...
(which by the way means that the work has not even started, except a few heroic users). My initial list found 20 thousands needed files, of which about 10 % is already identified as being on/from Commons <
Nemo
We have two repositories, both with 30.000 files. I reduced the number by a third to take in account that some files are coming from Commons. For instance, I by myself uploaded more than 2,600 files wikivoyage/shared. The estimate of 20,000 files schould be a realistic one.
Roland
Roland Unger, 04/11/2012 07:41:
We have two repositories, both with 30.000 files. I reduced the number by a third to take in account that some files are coming from Commons. For instance, I by myself uploaded more than 2,600 files wikivoyage/shared. The estimate of 20,000 files schould be a realistic one.
Except that orphan files don't urgently need to be moved. According to preliminary lists, only 14 thousands files needed to be imported (not all of them actually needed).
Nemo
wikivoyage-l@lists.wikimedia.org