[Commons-l] Commons-l Digest, Vol 38, Issue 17

[ricard réka]

-- Eredeti üzenet --
Feladó: commons-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org
Címzett: commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org
Másolat: 
Elküldve: 2008.07.26  14:00
Téma: Commons-l Digest, Vol 38, Issue 17Send Commons-l mailing list submissions tocommons-l at lists.wikimedia.orgTo subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visithttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-lor, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' tocommons-l-request at lists.wikimedia.orgPlease, don't sebd for me letter nowaday. Thank you, MoíraYou can reach the person managing the list atcommons-l-owner at lists.wikimedia.orgWhen replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specificthan "Re: Contents of Commons-l digest..."Today's Topics:1. Fwd: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA AND INTERNETARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGES (David Gerard)2. Suggestion for improvement (Timwi)3. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Daniel Schwen)4. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Platonides)5. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Andrew Gray)6. Re: Suggestion for improvement (Bryan Tong Minh)----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:19:19 +0100From: "David Gerard" <dgerard at gmail.com>Subject: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA ANDINTERNET ARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGESTo: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"<commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID:<fbad4e140807251219w613b6d57m1dfeb3edc442b8e6 at mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8Mind you, are there any places we could use a NASA pic we don't already?- d.---------- Forwarded message ----------From: Waerth <waerth at asianet.co.th>Date: 2008/7/25Subject: [Foundation-l] Missed opportunity: NASA AND INTERNET ARCHIVELAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGESTo: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>I just received this press release from NASA. Since NASA images aremostly PD to my knowledhe we missed an opportunity here:July 24, 2008David E. SteitzHeadquarters, Washington202-358-1730david.steitz at nasa.govPaul HickmanInternet Archive415-462-1509, 415-561-6767paul at archive.orgRELEASE: 08-173NASA AND INTERNET ARCHIVE LAUNCH CENTRALIZED RESOURCE FOR IMAGESWASHINGTON -- NASA and Internet Archive, a non-profit digital librarybased in San Francisco, made available the most comprehensivecompilation ever of NASA's vast collection of photographs, historicfilm and video Thursday. Located at www.nasaimages.org, the Internetsite combines for the first time 21 major NASA imagery collectionsinto a single, searchable online resource. A link to the Web sitewill appear on the http://www.nasa.gov home page.The Web site launch is the first step in a five-year partnership thatwill add millions of images and thousands of hours of video and audiocontent, with enhanced search and viewing capabilities, and new userfeatures on a continuing basis. Over time, integration ofwww.nasaimages.org with http://www.nasa.gov will become more seamlessand comprehensive ."This partnership with Internet Archive enables NASA to provide theAmerican public with access to its vast collection of imagery fromone searchable source, unlocking a new treasure trove of discoveriesfor students, historians, enthusiasts and researchers," said NASADeputy Administrator Shana Dale. "This new resource also will enablethe agency to digitize and preserve historical content now notavailable on the Internet for future generations."Through a competitive process, NASA selected Internet Archive tomanage the NASA Images Web site under a non-exclusive Space Actagreement, signed in July 2007. The five-year project is at no costto the taxpayer and the images are free to the public."NASA's media is an incredibly important and valuable national asset.It is a tremendous honor for the Internet Archive to be NASA'spartner in this project," says Brewster Kahle, founder of InternetArchive. "We are excited to mark this first step in a long-termcollaboration to create a rich and growing public resource."The content of the Web site covers all the diverse activities ofAmerica's space program, including imagery from the Apollo moonmissions, Hubble Space Telescope views of the universe andexperimental aircraft past and present. Keyword searching isavailable with easy-to-use resources for teachers and students.Internet Archive is developing the NASA Images project using softwaredonated by Luna Imaging Inc. of Los Angeles and with the generoussupport of the Kahle-Austin Foundation of San Francisco.For more information about NASA and agency programs, visit:http://www.nasa.govWaerthhttp://fi.ndit.athttp://www.archive.org_______________________________________________foundation-l mailing listfoundation-l at lists.wikimedia.orgUnsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l------------------------------Message: 2Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 23:49:16 +0100From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>Subject: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: commons-l at lists.wikimedia.orgMessage-ID: 1 at ger.gmane.org>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowedA friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error message suggested to use a different filename.Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he canreplace the image on Commons.Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. Heshould not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replacedwherever it is.Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-siteaccounts.Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.Thanks for listening!Timwi------------------------------Message: 3Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:08:05 -0500From: Daniel Schwen <lists at schwen.de>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID: <200807251808.05917.lists at schwen.de>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.[..]> Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He> should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced> wherever it is.Apart from the valid points, I believe this is a fringe case. The case in which you should upload over existing images are few. The alternative of uploading with a new filename doesn't seem so counterintuitive to me that it should deterr a lot of contributors. But I could be wrong here.------------------------------Message: 4Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:43:10 +0200From: Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: commons-l at lists.wikimedia.orgMessage-ID: 1 at ger.gmane.org>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowedTimwi wrote:> A friend of mine ran into a series of really annoying/frustrating > problems today which ended up greatly discouraging him from contributing.> > This is meant to be constructive criticism, please make of it what you will.> > He downloaded an image file from Wikipedia without realising that it was > actually hosted on Commons. This is perfectly reasonable because > Wikipedia explicitly tries to cover up the distinction for normal users.> > He then tried to upload his improved version of the image.> > Problem #1: He couldn't because it was hosted on Commons. The error > message suggested to use a different filename.> > Short-term solution: The message should have mentioned that he can> replace the image on Commons.> > Long-term solution: Replacing the image should be transparent. He> should not have to care where it is hosted, it should just be replaced> wherever it is.> > Problem #2: He didn't have an account on Commons.> > Solution: Fix the single sign-on for good. No more single-site> accounts.Now, that's a nice structured message. A pity i see it after the more cryptic ones on wikitech :)However, thetre's little to do at commons for your friend.#1 Short-term is a message to be changed on the wikipedias or mediawiki localisation.#1 Long-term is a feature request for the devs, but i see it unlikely, as the shared repository might not be a wiki, you may not have credentials, etc.Not that images on commons showed on local projects don't show the link "Upload a new version of this file".> Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons > didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".> > This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts > absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to > prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a > net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.> > Thanks for listening!> TimwiNew users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images. They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea.Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.Moreover, the configuration on all WMF sites -not just commons- is to only allow reuploading images to autoconfirmed users (unless you were the original uploader) .------------------------------Message: 5Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:48:35 +0100From: "Andrew Gray" <shimgray at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"<commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID:<f3fedb0d0807251648n32933b83h905f82806b339963 at mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-12008/7/26 Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com>:> New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images.> They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change> existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea.> Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons> and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.It also helps discourage accidental overwriting, which used to bereasonably common - someone would upload something with a fairlygeneric filename, not realise they were overwriting an existing image,and we'd realise a few days later that the Belgian prime minister'sarticle on several projects was displaying a large photograph of atrain.-- - Andrew Grayandrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk------------------------------Message: 6Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:19:30 +0200From: "Bryan Tong Minh" <bryan.tongminh at gmail.com>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Suggestion for improvementTo: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List"<commons-l at lists.wikimedia.org>Message-ID:<fd5886130807260019p43568244s536368bf88eef6e2 at mail.gmail.com>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:43 AM, Platonides <Platonides at gmail.com> wrote:> Timwi wrote:[...]>> Problem #3 (and this is the main reason I'm posting this): Commons>> didn't let him replace the image because his account was "too new".>>>> This is completely unacceptable. I am not convinced that this detracts>> absolutely any vandals or other malicious users, and it only serves to>> prevent honest/legitimate contributions. This restriction results in a>> net loss, not gain, of useful contribution to Commons.>>>> Thanks for listening!>> Timwi>> New users often want to *upload new files*, not modify current images.> They are also often the most clueless, so not letting them change> existing images until autoconfirmed is a good idea.> Specially because that avoids vandals creating new accounts on commons> and replacing with penis images the ones on article X.>> Moreover, the configuration on all WMF sites -not just commons- is to> only allow reuploading images to autoconfirmed users (unless you were> the original uploader).>>>> _______________________________________________> Commons-l mailing list> Commons-l at lists.wikimedia .org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l><https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13521>------------------------------_______________________________________________Commons-l mailing listCommons-l at lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-lEnd of Commons-l Digest, Vol 38, Issue 17*****************************************


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/commons-l/attachments/20080730/ce92fa3e/attachment-0001.htm