I was not referring to your case, but in general. Even if so, talking about your case,
you simply did what we all do. Or what we all should do, and we just know that sometimes
it's not enough.
Did you tell them that no matter what, somebody could have decided to delete them in any
case? Because that's what happen, it's just part of life on Wiki. Sometimes I show
them the pages with the situations similar to yours, and they coexist with sloppy
activities full of copyviol nobody cares (which I sometimes share too)
When I am in charge of a workshop or class, I clearly point this out. No matter how
wonderful the slides about sharing and good faith sound, these things occurred and occurs.
Reality is not something I can change for them. When I am in charge almost nothing that is
inserted or uploaded is deleted, as far as I remember once a student upload a funny gif
before my class, but really almost nothing else... I encourage them to write down in the
description what is useful to clarify the situation and I clearly tell them that they can
fell lucky, but it might end bad. I show them all the controls I do because that's
actually what they have to learn themselves. They same copyviol tools the sysop might use,
for example. The same pattern patrollers will use to find their upload. There were nice or
useful files I did not encourage to upload at a course because it wold have been
complicated, and for me it's fine because there are so many different things to take
care on wiki, that some useful files can wait until Commons improve its situation.
When I am not in charge however, and I try to explain these aspects, usually somebody who
organized the event tell me that I should not bother students with it. They say, this will
discourage them (actually, I never had discourages students) Sometimes I was told to hide
these aspects when proposing a seminar o activity, which I usually refuse.i know it's
not going to be easy and it's not going to be appreciated but it's a honest
description. In the end, it's useful to learn in life, in general, that human
communities are not linear. Especially when you share something valuable for free you
might be mistreated, I see no point in deprive them of such life lesson. these dynamics
are usually stronger in volunteer-based communities, because some people really want to
behave that way, it's what they like to do in their free time, they are very
motivated.
Also, so far I never had problems with professional as well. One of the best video for
Wiki Science Competition was proposed for deletion, the user had to track all details
about it. But the person who went through that was not upset, he was ready, because I told
him so the week before. And as a good doctor, he was just aware of human nature, I guess.
So If you work on the platforms, you know this happens. And you know how you can usually
go around it and when it is worth to face it or not, but this is not the matter of a
procedure or a checklist, it's mostly being aware of the human nature. Of course, I
wish platforms were different. I tried to do my part for them to be different, I simply
know it won't be soon. And I think that WMF can do nothing about that.
Alessandro
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 18:00:47 CEST, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga
<galder158(a)hotmail.com> ha scritto:
#yiv1485519652 P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}I read this:
On the other side, people who do outreach push too much for results with lmited
understanding of the ecosystem they ask students to interact. I have met people who ask
for "button men" at their initiatives with poor regard for the real expertise,
often overselling what they do. it's not nice to be treated superficially when you try
to explain why a certain topic is not relevant or why sending a ticket is appropriate for
a certain image. If you are too focused on "your stuff", I wouldn't be
surprised if you don't care for a functional working environment as well. You just
expect someone else to build it for you.
And I want to talk about what we did in this situation, and why the environment triggers
frustration.
First, when the professors came with the idea of creating multimedia contents for making
richer Wikipedia articles, we focused on some issues: the content should be as neutral as
possible, all the content should be original and the music used should be cc-by-(sa). We
explained this idea twice in two different meetings, first with one professor, then with
all the team that was going to guide the students.
Second, we stressed on this ideas with students during a four hours (four hours!)
workshop. We gave them examples of bad content, we gave them examples of good content, we
encouraged them to use only free sources and we explained how to work on Commons and why
the content should be there.
Third, the professors spent three more weeks with them, helping develop the video, how to
make good recordins, how to make them more neutral (what to focus on), and how to find
material that could be reused.
Fourth, I went again with them to a four hour class where we revised all the materials, we
certified that all the music was free, we checked all the illustrations and we asked not
to upload those that were of poor value or had any doubt about their copyright status.
Fifth, we helped students to find suitable songs for their videos, how to tag that the
files were derivative works if applicable using Commons uploading system, how to fill
everything if they were using video2commons and how to use the materials on wikipedia. It
was my fourth morning with the students, and the third one dedicated to Commons. We also
explained again what was the difference between free access and free license, because some
of the students didn't get why we were not allowing them to upload some content.
Sixth, yes, there is a sixth, I spent another morning with the professors evaluating all
the materials from a wikimedian point of view, talking about their quality and designing
improvements for next year. Students then presented their works to a broader audience at
the University.
Seventh, students went on vacations. At this moment an admin decided that all the previous
work was not valid and claimed that it should be DW. Period. And then I noticed that some
stuff was missing when I started to write a report about the experience for the Outreach
Newsletter. And as I have followed all the steps, I have a dedicated place at the Outreach
Dashboard where I can track everything this students created, uploaded or
edited:https://outreachdashboard.wmflabs.org/courses/HUHEZI/Ikus-entzunezko…
. This content is public and can be easily reached in our dedicated education programme
portal:https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari:Hezkuntza
It should be maybe few days spent with them explaining how Commons work, what licenses are
suitable and why free content matters. If you feel so, then I should explain that we have
created two videotutorials, a leaflet and a small book explaining everything we were
explaining direcdtly to them, so if they had any doubt they could read them. And we gave a
copy to each student, so they could have a guidance. And we also gave them a direct e-mail
so they could ask for copyrights issues: two of them did it and we gave them some
answers.
Cheers
Galder
From: Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of Alessandro
Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 5:30 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Dispute between Common and Outreach We have dozens of cross
project brainstorming off-wiki. But the general feeling is often that if you encourage the
social dynamics of a platform in a way that people who like to "play cops" are a
key actor... when this is established there is no point in creating sophisticated or
efficient tools, because as long as they force such people to work in a different way they
will kinda oppose them.
For example, many time I find a deleted file I could spot dozens of similar in the very
same category and the few times I have asked the user who deleted it or ask the deletion,
I could feel he had no real interested in completing the job. The fight for copyright is
not a goal, it's a just a mean for him. He probably has fun cherry-picking one random
file, with no consistent approach. So how many times for example I found files from the
USA where there is no FOP for statues deleted maybe if uploaded by the European users but
not by the American ones. Because of course if you did delete them all (as you should),
enwikipedia community will notice and it will be a bigger deal.. it's a problem when
all images of a monument disappear, right? So let's delete some random files, and
vanish when somebody point out the other ones, just to repeat the same pattern somewhere
else after a while. That's why it's so easy to find en-N users from the USA who
have limited clue with rule of FOP. Now, the users who perform this type of deletion
pattern will dislike any tools or preference who simply encourage to do it in a consistent
way... they are expert and they know how categories work, if they don't complete the
job is probably because they don't want to. If we get close to the issue, we manage to
get around some "the newbes will misuse it" or "its a delicate
matter", I guess the "good faith " clause will appear.
So, we keep a random patrolling and retropatrolling on this issue, which means poor
overall copyright literacy, angry users because of the procedural incoherence and in the
end a huge backlog (since the bulk of the files remain there). Take this dynamics, in
other fields, with different nuances, multiplied by a dozens of different legal and
workload scenarios and voilà. You have one of the reason of our current situation.
I guess there is no tool which can fix that, it's just the way a community really
wants to be. Tools can help to encourage people to think differently of course, but I fear
that would be a strong resistance.
A. M:
Il lunedì 13 maggio 2019, 16:56:49 CEST, Samuel Klein <meta.sj(a)gmail.com> ha
scritto:
Ditto. But did not have the impression that this was {a, the} pressing
need.
Perhaps we also need better ways to highlight workload overloads (and
continue conversations about them through time, rather than sporadic
proposals of specific implementations that can easily fail) to stimulate
cross-project brainstorming to solve the most pressing problems of scale
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:02 AM James Heilman <jmh649(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. Deal
with a fair bit of
copyright issues occurring via paid editing and flicker washing of images
and would be happy to do admin work around that if the Commons community
was interested.
James
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 4:00 AM Paulo Santos Perneta <
paulosperneta(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Wikimedia project communities in general seem to
be quite stagnant, if
not
declining, apart from Wikidata, which is and
always will be a whole
different case. In the case of Commons it was already very much as it is
now when I joined in 2009. I always found it a very pleasant place, but
overtime I understood I was the exception there, and most people had bad
experiences. And it is as Yann has shown there, it's a few sysops running
the entire show almost alone, not because they want that, but because
nobody else helps with that.
IMO the problem is not with the existing sysops, but because people in
general do not feel attracted to copyright and other similar minucious
stuff which marks everyday life in Commons. And, without that knowledge
it
is pointless, if not counterproductive, to place
a candidacy to sysop. No
idea what the solution could be, but it certainly is not blaming Commons
and the existing sysops. If more people was interested in copyright, less
mistakes would be happening in Commons as well. Whatever the solution is,
it probably passes by that.
Best,
Paulo
Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <galder158(a)hotmail.com> escreveu no dia
segunda,
13/05/2019 à(s) 07:09:
> A good question to ask would be why the admin group is not growing. And
> maybe (maybe) we can find a common answer to both problems pointed
here.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>