On 13 December 2014 at 02:48, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.
geni wrote:
2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)
Individualised ones don't scale
Or at least make them far less obnoxious.
Been tried. A lot. It doesn't make any difference mind but I assume people will continue trying.
Saying "if you look over here, you'll see the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
Going after commons for a project wide issue however pretty pointless.
Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of googling your nic+ "CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of users mind.
Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images, TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches.
They tend to object to people trying to run too many automated searches on their services.
For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search functionality suck a lot less.
Being worked on
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CirrusSearch
Commons search needs:
- search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);
Been on the wishlist for years.
search by color; and
search by file size and type.
Doable but I don't think it the CirrusSearch people are working on anything like that.
Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos)
In browser editing is kinda dicey.
and additional supported file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have).
computer icons in Microsoft Windows?
I'd put 3D file formats higher up the list. Not that either will every actually happen.
This is a nasty cop-out.
Not really. Recognising our limits has its uses and if we can turn the chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs know will point them in useful direction we at least get to know what is going on.
We already do this in a limited fashion, but we need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons. There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs
That's ongoing but it has issues with diminishing returns
https://geniice.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-point-of-diminishing-returns-on...
and individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.
Generally works better if done by the project in question rather than commons.