Commons and The Year of the Picture

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
41 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Commons and The Year of the Picture

Michael Snow-3
This isn't directly related to the board meeting, but I want to pause
for a moment to share some ideas. Not all of them are mine, quite a bit
of this is directly from the chapters.

The Swedish chapter had the idea to declare 2009 The Year of the
Picture, to put a concerted effort into adding images to the Wikimedia
Commons, along with using more illustrations in Wikipedia and elsewhere.
I think this is absolutely a great idea. Making better use of visual
material in our projects also fits in with the ongoing effort to improve
quality.

I applaud the efforts of all the chapters in this area, and I encourage
anyone who can to join in. You may recall that the German chapter
recently secured the release of a large number of images from their
federal archive, and several other chapters are also working on free
image collection projects. Hopefully our April meetings of chapter
representatives, in conjunction with the board, will be an opportunity
to develop more ideas and strategies. And of course, you don't even need
to have a recognized chapter to get a group together and organize photo
expeditions, as for example some of the people in the now-approved New
York chapter have done.

Commons is obviously an important part of any such efforts, as our
repository for freely licensed media. Now because Commons is a project
in itself, there has always been some tension around how separate and
independent it should be from the other projects. Should it be
considered to have its own community? (Yes, says Brianna, otherwise it
would be no different from Photobucket.) How much should it take
direction from the other projects in order to serve their needs? For
that matter, should the other projects occasionally take direction from
Commons as its participants do things like screen for copyright issues?
Just how broad of a scope does Commons have?

Our mission, fundamentally, is educational. That may sometimes be a
limitation, where media that doesn't have serious educational potential
should be avoided as a distraction, or things that detract from
education can be edited out. However, the needs of education may be
broad indeed, so I'd say that the scope of Commons could be broader -
actually, maybe I should say deeper instead. Along those lines, I'll
share some comments I made in an internal discussion on the subject.

Speaking primarily from my experience working with images, I find it
really restrictive to think of Commons as limited to those images
actually needed for Wikipedia. I think perhaps we should approach it
from the perspective of what a project like Wikibooks could use -
Wikibooks not as it is, but as it could be.

The actual art of matching illustrations to text requires having not
just one passably suitable picture, but choosing the best for your
particular purpose out of a range of similar options. It also is not a
matter of taking the one platonically perfect picture and dropping it in
every conceivable place, though given what's currently available that's
often what we end up doing. To find a good illustration when you want
one ultimately demands a vast library of images, many of which might
never be used otherwise because nobody has called for the particular
combination of features they provide.

I deal with this regularly in a professional capacity, this is what
stock photography firms are built on, and I can assure you that there is
no adequate freely licensed stock photography resource in the world.
Commons is the best there is, and it is barely usable, and then only
sporadically. Maybe some people imagine we have too many pictures of
people's cats and dogs, since those are popular subjects, but I'll say
we don't have nearly enough even of that - and in particular we don't
have enough variety. Suppose I wanted a picture of a dog and a cat
together, a fairly mundane subject, for which I did at least find a
category with 27 files at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cats_and_dogs. I suppose
that's a start, but at a glance there's no way that provides enough
options for what I might want, especially if I was particular about how
they're posed or what breed they are.

There are no doubt bigger gaps in our library, and arguably more
important ones. But mostly we need to get more pictures and figure out
ways to use them.

--Michael Snow


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Andre Engels
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I deal with this regularly in a professional capacity, this is what
> stock photography firms are built on, and I can assure you that there is
> no adequate freely licensed stock photography resource in the world.
> Commons is the best there is, and it is barely usable, and then only
> sporadically. Maybe some people imagine we have too many pictures of
> people's cats and dogs, since those are popular subjects, but I'll say
> we don't have nearly enough even of that - and in particular we don't
> have enough variety. Suppose I wanted a picture of a dog and a cat
> together, a fairly mundane subject, for which I did at least find a
> category with 27 files at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cats_and_dogs. I suppose
> that's a start, but at a glance there's no way that provides enough
> options for what I might want, especially if I was particular about how
> they're posed or what breed they are.

I think this comes back to something I already talked about when
Commons only just started - we don't need the umptieth picture of a
dog, but we do want more pictures of specific dog breeds (although as
things are now, we're pretty much over-stuffed with the more popular
dog breeds too), of dogs doing specific things, of dogs in specific
situations etcetera. However, this takes more than just getting more
pictures. It's also important that they are described well (George W.
Bush talking is "just another Bush picture", but if you know where he
is speaking at what occasion it becomes much more), and that they are
findable.

--
André Engels, [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-3
Hoi,
How wonderful, the WIkimedia Foundation adopts the Swedish idea to dedicate
2009 as the year of the picture. There is a lot that we can achieve when we
put our mind to it. So let me tell you about some of our needs and of our
low hanging fruits.

==Diversity==
Some people say that we only need one picture of a dog. One opposing view is
that we have over 250 Wikipedias who all write about the dog, dog breeds
etc. It would be boring if they all have to use the same illustration. When
we started with Commons, the same picture was loaded on many projects and
concentrating them in one location and annotating them once was one of the
primary reasons for Commons. By having a rich collection of quality pictures
we give children something to choose from when they illustrate their
projects.

==Historical subjects and archives==
For many historical subjects it is difficult to find appropriate
illustrations. In 2008 the successful building of relations let to the
opening up of the Bundesarchiv.. We got 100.000 images in a usable format.
This is becoming a win-win situation because many of the annotations have
been checked and feedback is provided to the Bundesarchiv. In the meantime,
slowly but surely these images are working their way into our articles. This
success story provides an argument that may convince other archives to open
up their collection.

==Historical subjects and bias==
We owe a debt of gratitude to archives like the Library of Congress. They
prove great custodians of our cultural heritage. They are a primary source
for illustrations for our historical subjects. The LoC even provides high
resolution scans for download. This embarrassment of riches has one
downside, their material is American and when we overly rely on American
resources ourcollection of  illustrations becomes inherently biased. The
conclusion is obvious, we need more archives to cooperate with. The library
of Alexandria is an obvious one, but we need to illustrate the historical
persons, places and events from countries like Sudan, Bangladesh, South
Africa as much and as well as the persons, places and events of the USA.

==Historical pictures and quality==
Our aim is to provide high quality illustrations with our articles. When
there is nothing available, almost any picture improves the quality of a
picture. When better illustrations are found, the old pictures should be
replaced. This does not mean that the original historical picture lost its
value, it may mean that we only need a higher quality version of the same
image. By keeping these pictures and by looking for a better scan or a
restored version of the image we build on our portfolio of illustrative
material.

==Restorations of illustrative material==
A small group of our people spend much of their time restoring illustrative
material, both images and sound. The quality of their work is recognised in
the high number of featured pictures and sounds. There is a Wikibook on
"Image restoration". There is an open invitation to support anyone
interested in this most important work. When 2009 is to be the year of the
picture, I can only hope for a workshop on this subject in Argentina. I can
also hope that the unfulfilled needs of this community get positive
attention.

==Commons and language==
Commons is only usable for people who speak English. A seven or eight year
old is not likely to find a picture of a hynder. When our material is to be
educational, we must be able to reach those people who are being educated.
It has been proved that we can provide Commons with categories in multiple
languages, with a category tree in multiple languages and with a search
engine that allows a seven year to find this hynder. Half of the WMF traffic
is in English. It is only half our public that we would do it for.

==Commons, tools and language II==
Many software tools have sprung up around Commons. Commonist is one of the
more prominent tools. After some discussion Commonist was included in
Betawiki and it became practical to provide localisations to Commonist. In a
couple of day more then twenty localisations were completed. We need more
pictures from countries like the Philipines, Turkey, Slovenia and Macedonia
and enabling people to contribute in their own language is a powerful tool.
Commonist demonstrates that this can be do this if we put our mind and
effort to this.

==Commons and usability==
The other day I tried and failed to upload a crop from an historical
picture. I asked someone well versed in the intricacies of the upload
process to upload it for me. For me the upload process is broken. I am
motivated about Commons but I fail at getting a picture in. Given that the
Stanton project is about Wikipedia, we need a similar project for Commons.

==Commons==
Commons is a great and important project. When we give more attention to it
will prove to grow from an ugly duckling into a swan. Currently there are
3,8 million media files, what number are we aiming for at the end of the
year ?
Thanks,
       GerardM


http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Image_restoration
http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Commonist


2009/1/19 Michael Snow <[hidden email]>

> This isn't directly related to the board meeting, but I want to pause
> for a moment to share some ideas. Not all of them are mine, quite a bit
> of this is directly from the chapters.
>
> The Swedish chapter had the idea to declare 2009 The Year of the
> Picture, to put a concerted effort into adding images to the Wikimedia
> Commons, along with using more illustrations in Wikipedia and elsewhere.
> I think this is absolutely a great idea. Making better use of visual
> material in our projects also fits in with the ongoing effort to improve
> quality.
>
> I applaud the efforts of all the chapters in this area, and I encourage
> anyone who can to join in. You may recall that the German chapter
> recently secured the release of a large number of images from their
> federal archive, and several other chapters are also working on free
> image collection projects. Hopefully our April meetings of chapter
> representatives, in conjunction with the board, will be an opportunity
> to develop more ideas and strategies. And of course, you don't even need
> to have a recognized chapter to get a group together and organize photo
> expeditions, as for example some of the people in the now-approved New
> York chapter have done.
>
> Commons is obviously an important part of any such efforts, as our
> repository for freely licensed media. Now because Commons is a project
> in itself, there has always been some tension around how separate and
> independent it should be from the other projects. Should it be
> considered to have its own community? (Yes, says Brianna, otherwise it
> would be no different from Photobucket.) How much should it take
> direction from the other projects in order to serve their needs? For
> that matter, should the other projects occasionally take direction from
> Commons as its participants do things like screen for copyright issues?
> Just how broad of a scope does Commons have?
>
> Our mission, fundamentally, is educational. That may sometimes be a
> limitation, where media that doesn't have serious educational potential
> should be avoided as a distraction, or things that detract from
> education can be edited out. However, the needs of education may be
> broad indeed, so I'd say that the scope of Commons could be broader -
> actually, maybe I should say deeper instead. Along those lines, I'll
> share some comments I made in an internal discussion on the subject.
>
> Speaking primarily from my experience working with images, I find it
> really restrictive to think of Commons as limited to those images
> actually needed for Wikipedia. I think perhaps we should approach it
> from the perspective of what a project like Wikibooks could use -
> Wikibooks not as it is, but as it could be.
>
> The actual art of matching illustrations to text requires having not
> just one passably suitable picture, but choosing the best for your
> particular purpose out of a range of similar options. It also is not a
> matter of taking the one platonically perfect picture and dropping it in
> every conceivable place, though given what's currently available that's
> often what we end up doing. To find a good illustration when you want
> one ultimately demands a vast library of images, many of which might
> never be used otherwise because nobody has called for the particular
> combination of features they provide.
>
> I deal with this regularly in a professional capacity, this is what
> stock photography firms are built on, and I can assure you that there is
> no adequate freely licensed stock photography resource in the world.
> Commons is the best there is, and it is barely usable, and then only
> sporadically. Maybe some people imagine we have too many pictures of
> people's cats and dogs, since those are popular subjects, but I'll say
> we don't have nearly enough even of that - and in particular we don't
> have enough variety. Suppose I wanted a picture of a dog and a cat
> together, a fairly mundane subject, for which I did at least find a
> category with 27 files at
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cats_and_dogs. I suppose
> that's a start, but at a glance there's no way that provides enough
> options for what I might want, especially if I was particular about how
> they're posed or what breed they are.
>
> There are no doubt bigger gaps in our library, and arguably more
> important ones. But mostly we need to get more pictures and figure out
> ways to use them.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Guillaume Paumier
Hello,

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The Swedish chapter had the idea to declare 2009 The Year of the
> Picture, to put a concerted effort into adding images to the Wikimedia
> Commons, along with using more illustrations in Wikipedia and elsewhere.
> I think this is absolutely a great idea. Making better use of visual
> material in our projects also fits in with the ongoing effort to improve
> quality.

Let me say for the record that I wholeheartedly support this idea.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Commons is only usable for people who speak English. A seven or eight year
> old is not likely to find a picture of a hynder.

Indeed; although the Commons community has put a lot of energy in
welcoming users from all origins, I know many regular Wikipedians who
can't use Commons because they can't read English and they can't
browse its content. Another issue is that "Commons is not censored",
and a seven-year-old child might as well fall upon the "female
genitals" category. Imho the search engine of Commons should:
* allow multilingual tags or categories (Gerard already suggested
that, and Commons users have been waiting for such a feature for a
very long time)
* include a "Safe mode" for children.
* allow some sort of rating to facilitate the search; as someone said
elsewhere, "Commons is a depository, and depositories are expected to
host lots of junk". A rating feature would allow the best of Commons
to be presented first during the search, and junk to be presented
last.

If we really want to make 2009 « the year of the picture », this
initiative must imho be accompanied by a real development effort.
There is currently one chapter employing a MediaWiki developer, and I
know there are at least two other chapters considering sponsoring one.
Perhaps a chapter-sponsored initiative could be devoted to some sort
of "search layer" (in core or as an extension) that would implement
these features. Perhaps this has already been considered as part of
the Stanton usability initiative.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Pharos-3
In reply to this post by Michael Snow-3
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Michael Snow <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This isn't directly related to the board meeting, but I want to pause
> for a moment to share some ideas. Not all of them are mine, quite a bit
> of this is directly from the chapters.
>
> The Swedish chapter had the idea to declare 2009 The Year of the
> Picture, to put a concerted effort into adding images to the Wikimedia
> Commons, along with using more illustrations in Wikipedia and elsewhere.
> I think this is absolutely a great idea. Making better use of visual
> material in our projects also fits in with the ongoing effort to improve
> quality.
>
> I applaud the efforts of all the chapters in this area, and I encourage
> anyone who can to join in. You may recall that the German chapter
> recently secured the release of a large number of images from their
> federal archive, and several other chapters are also working on free
> image collection projects. Hopefully our April meetings of chapter
> representatives, in conjunction with the board, will be an opportunity
> to develop more ideas and strategies. And of course, you don't even need
> to have a recognized chapter to get a group together and organize photo
> expeditions, as for example some of the people in the now-approved New
> York chapter have done.

Hurrah for the The Year of the Picture!

In New York City, it feels like 2008 was our Year of the Picture with
our "Wikipedia Takes Manhattan" photo scavenger hunts, and I encourage
folks to look at stuff that has been done in other places as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Takes_The_City

I hope "Wikipedia Loves Art" can be a great kick-off to The Year of
the Picture, with maybe a dozen museums and cultural institutions
around the globe who will be participating next month.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Loves_Art

Thanks,
Pharos

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Guillaume Paumier
Well, after http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression this project
has been started (see also discussion on meta forum,
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Alleged Commercialisation
of the French Wikipedia) I decided not to upload any images on Commons
with resolution higher than 800x600 any more. (This resolution is
perfectly fine to illustrate the articles but is substandard for any
commercial use). One of the stewards, MaxSem, has left all Wikimedia
projects because of this initiative. Therefore, I do not quite understand
what we are talking about.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
It has always been permitted to use the Commons work commercially. It has
always been explicitly prohibited to disallow non commercial use.

There are two options: either we only allow OTHERS to make money or we can
make some money as well. I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine because,
it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed. What is
it that makes you oppose us to make money in order to support our activities
?

I am surprised that you or MaxSem take this position. I do not quite
understand why you did not realise earlier that allowing commercial use is
what we have always done.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/1/22 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>

> Well, after http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression this project
> has been started (see also discussion on meta forum,
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Alleged Commercialisation
> of the French Wikipedia) I decided not to upload any images on Commons
> with resolution higher than 800x600 any more. (This resolution is
> perfectly fine to illustrate the articles but is substandard for any
> commercial use). One of the stewards, MaxSem, has left all Wikimedia
> projects because of this initiative. Therefore, I do not quite understand
> what we are talking about.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Mark (Markie)
i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons
and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site has
a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit.
what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising.

i have no objections to people making money, especially if it benefits WMF
but i do have a problem with third parties using wikipedia to place links so
they can make money

regards

mark

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> It has always been permitted to use the Commons work commercially. It has
> always been explicitly prohibited to disallow non commercial use.
>
> There are two options: either we only allow OTHERS to make money or we can
> make some money as well. I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine because,
> it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed. What is
> it that makes you oppose us to make money in order to support our
> activities
> ?
>
> I am surprised that you or MaxSem take this position. I do not quite
> understand why you did not realise earlier that allowing commercial use is
> what we have always done.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> 2009/1/22 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
>
> > Well, after http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projet:Impression this project
> > has been started (see also discussion on meta forum,
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Alleged Commercialisation
> > of the French Wikipedia) I decided not to upload any images on Commons
> > with resolution higher than 800x600 any more. (This resolution is
> > perfectly fine to illustrate the articles but is substandard for any
> > commercial use). One of the stewards, MaxSem, has left all Wikimedia
> > projects because of this initiative. Therefore, I do not quite understand
> > what we are talking about.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Sam Johnston-4
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> It has always been permitted to use the Commons work commercially. It has
> always been explicitly prohibited to disallow non commercial use.
> <snip>
> I am surprised that you or MaxSem take this position. I do not quite
> understand why you did not realise earlier that allowing commercial use is
> what we have always done.
>

That is not at all the point - this is a slippery slope indeed and a
dangerous precedent to set, especially at the chapter level. There are
potentially ways it could be done properly (eg open access to suppliers
meeting a certain standard, non-profit printing, etc.) but so long as we're
meeting our targets the potential cost does not seem to be at all worth the
significant risk.

I hope MaxSem returns once sanity prevails,

Sam
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Sam I asked a question and you conveniently snipped that out. So you did not
reply to my question and consequently your statement of "not at all"  does
not relate to what I wrote..

If you are of the opinion that things can be done differently, please
explain how. A printer makes money, that is how he earns his crust. So how
would non-profit printing work. Does it exist ? You are also under the
impression that "we" are meeting our targets.. What do you know of the
financial position of the French chapter and what do you know of its
ambitions ?
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/1/22 Sam Johnston <[hidden email]>

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > It has always been permitted to use the Commons work commercially. It has
> > always been explicitly prohibited to disallow non commercial use.
> > <snip>
> > I am surprised that you or MaxSem take this position. I do not quite
> > understand why you did not realise earlier that allowing commercial use
> is
> > what we have always done.
> >
>
> That is not at all the point - this is a slippery slope indeed and a
> dangerous precedent to set, especially at the chapter level. There are
> potentially ways it could be done properly (eg open access to suppliers
> meeting a certain standard, non-profit printing, etc.) but so long as we're
> meeting our targets the potential cost does not seem to be at all worth the
> significant risk.
>
> I hope MaxSem returns once sanity prevails,
>
> Sam
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Yaroslav M. Blanter
In reply to this post by Mark (Markie)
> i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons
> and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site
> has
> a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit.
> what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising.
>

Well, this is one point. Another point is, as far as I know, Wikimedia.fr,
which benefits from the commercial use, does not transfer money to support
other projects. I would not object to commercial use of MY pictures if I
knew that the profit is in a transparent (like donations) way invested in
the infrastructure of the whole foundation. So far, I have not seen any
evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the main argument in the
discussion was "We have decided to do it in French Wikipedia, and Meta has
nothing to say about this".

>I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine
>> because,
>> it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed.

Not really, I can print it out and it works fine. But not as a poster of
course.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The French chapter is a non profit organisation and France is not confined
to a single language or a single project. When the French chapter aims to
support the Wiki community and does this in France by doing similar things
to the Germans, I can only applaud them. By opening up the French cultural
heritage to us, all our project will benefit. By running projects locally,
the WMF organisation does not need to be involved the Germans brought us the
Tool server, I will happy to learn how the French will make a difference.

Consequently the notion that we will not all benefit from the work of the
French chapter is hard to support.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/1/22 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>

> > i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons
> > and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site
> > has
> > a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit.
> > what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising.
> >
>
> Well, this is one point. Another point is, as far as I know, Wikimedia.fr,
> which benefits from the commercial use, does not transfer money to support
> other projects. I would not object to commercial use of MY pictures if I
> knew that the profit is in a transparent (like donations) way invested in
> the infrastructure of the whole foundation. So far, I have not seen any
> evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the main argument in the
> discussion was "We have decided to do it in French Wikipedia, and Meta has
> nothing to say about this".
>
> >I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine
> >> because,
> >> it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed.
>
> Not really, I can print it out and it works fine. But not as a poster of
> course.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Guillaume Paumier
In reply to this post by Mark (Markie)
Hello,

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Mark (Markie)
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons
> and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site has
> a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit.
> what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising.
>
> i have no objections to people making money, especially if it benefits WMF
> but i do have a problem with third parties using wikipedia to place links so
> they can make money

How is this posters project any different from what we already do with
PediaPress?

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Florence Devouard-3
In reply to this post by Yaroslav M. Blanter
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:

>> i dont think the argument here is that people can make money from commons
>> and the pictures etc, its the fact (as i see it) that a commercial site
>> has
>> a link from the french wikipedia side bar to their site to make a profit.
>> what is the difference between this and link spamming and advertising.
>>
>
> Well, this is one point. Another point is, as far as I know, Wikimedia.fr,
> which benefits from the commercial use, does not transfer money to support
> other projects. I would not object to commercial use of MY pictures if I
> knew that the profit is in a transparent (like donations) way invested in
> the infrastructure of the whole foundation. So far, I have not seen any
> evidence that this is the case. On the contrary, the main argument in the
> discussion was "We have decided to do it in French Wikipedia, and Meta has
> nothing to say about this".
>
>> I disagree that 800x600 is perfectly fine
>>> because,
>>> it may be fine for online content but it is not fine when printed.
>
> Not really, I can print it out and it works fine. But not as a poster of
> course.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav

-----------

and

... - this is a slippery slope indeed and a
dangerous precedent to set, especially at the chapter level. There are
potentially ways it could be done properly (eg open access to suppliers
meeting a certain standard, non-profit printing, etc.) but so long as we're
meeting our targets the potential cost does not seem to be at all worth the
significant risk.

I hope MaxSem returns once sanity prevails,

Sam

-----------

and

Hoi,
The French chapter is a non profit organisation and France is not confined
to a single language or a single project. When the French chapter aims to
support the Wiki community and does this in France by doing similar things
to the Germans, I can only applaud them. By opening up the French cultural
heritage to us, all our project will benefit. By running projects locally,
the WMF organisation does not need to be involved the Germans brought us the
Tool server, I will happy to learn how the French will make a difference.

Consequently the notion that we will not all benefit from the work of the
French chapter is hard to support.
Thanks,
       GerardM


------------
Couple of quick clarifications/reminders

1. This project was not started and developped by the French chapter,
but by a wikipedia participant, who happened to ask the support of the
French Chapters. Which we agreed to offer. So, there is no slippery slope.

2. The French Wikipedia community has done an non-exclusive arrangement.
Only one company has been involved for now because it was the only one
interested and because it was interesting to first "test the concept".
If you look carefully at the interface, it is quite obvious it is
planned to welcome other companies; as well as to welcome community
feedback on quality of service provided.

3. There is very little difference between this project and the
Pediapress one. Actually, the only serious difference is that one make a
donation to Wikimedia France and the other to Wikimedia Foundation. The
other serious difference is that one is ported by Wikimedia Foundation
and the other one ported by the community.

4. Prior to starting the service, the company spontaneously made a 500
euros donation to Wikimedia Foundation. And was disappointed to learn
afterward that it would not be tax deductible. Wikimedia France provides
this deductibility, hence augmenting the chance of higher donation from
the company.

5. I see comments as well claiming that the operations of the French
chapter do not benefit the projects.
Please find here:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supported_by_Wikimedia_France
the list of all pictures that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and
our common pool of knowledge only THANKS to Wikimedia France (through
funding of the amateur photographs travel to various famous event, or
through the accreditations provided by Wikimedia France to access press
areas in order to take good quality pictures).
That category, supported by Wikimedia France, already host 800 good
quality freely-licenced images.

6. I also see comments claiming that the benefits of Wikimedia France is
not transparently reinvested in the entire infrastructure.
You will find the financial report of the association:
- in 2005: http://wikimedia.fr/share/rapport_financier_WMFrance2005.pdf
grand total: 2721 euros
  - in 2006: http://wikimedia.fr/share/Rapportfinancier_final2006.pdf
see details of expenses in the document.
- in 2007:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimédia_France/Rapport_d%27activité_2007
Regarding 2008, our year report is not yet published.
But you will be happy to learn that we spent 2059,99 euros for the
digitization of old documents (put in wikisource)


But more than that....

In november 2007, the board approved the following resolution which I
will translate for you

Résolution
Le CA autorise la dépense de 2228€ pour l'achat (software + support) de
Zeus Web Server (ZWS) qui sera installé sur le toolserver Wikimedia.
Documents relatifs
Email avec les détails techniques
Extrait: « it's trivial to justify the cost of ZWS; by spending EUR2,000
on a web server, we can improve performance by 4 or 8 times - the
equivalent of spending EUR10,000 or more on servers. »

The board approves the spending of 2228 euros to purchase (software and
support) of the Zeus Web Server to be installed on the Wikimedia toolserver.

River Tarnell said: « it's trivial to justify the cost of ZWS; by
spending EUR2,000 on a web server, we can improve performance by 4 or 8
times - the equivalent of spending EUR10,000 or more on servers. »

So, here is the point. At some point, Wikimedia France thought of
deploying its own tool server to provide services to Wikimedia users.
And then, we thought that it would probably be a duplication of efforts
with the work done on the current tool server. And rather than hosting
its own tool server, decided to help the development of the German tool
server. And funded that. Gerard, at our little level, you may say that
French helped the Germans ;-)
Note that I have no idea if that has been entirely implemented or not
yet, but that's not the point.


Three lessons imho

Lesson 1: I know some people suffer from the idea of others making money
from what they put under a free licence. If that really make them
suffer, they should quit putting text and images under a free licence.

Lesson 2: Pediapress and wikiPoster (and other projects in the future)
bring good service to our projects and our users. If a project such as
Wikiposter is removed, so should PediaPress.

Lesson 3: Wikimedia France clearly does not communicate enough on what
it does. We should push the point. Next time, we'll do a press
communicate when we fund anything international ;-)


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Erik Moeller-4
2009/1/22 Florence Devouard <[hidden email]>:
> 5. I see comments as well claiming that the operations of the French
> chapter do not benefit the projects.
> Please find here:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Supported_by_Wikimedia_France
> the list of all pictures that could be added to Wikimedia Commons and
> our common pool of knowledge only THANKS to Wikimedia France (through
> funding of the amateur photographs travel to various famous event, or
> through the accreditations provided by Wikimedia France to access press
> areas in order to take good quality pictures).

I love this idea - brilliant (both the funding of photographers, and
the tracking through a dedicated category).
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Sam Johnston-4
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

>
> If you are of the opinion that things can be done differently, please
> explain how. A printer makes money, that is how he earns his crust. So how
> would non-profit printing work. Does it exist ? You are also under the
> impression that "we" are meeting our targets.. What do you know of the
> financial position of the French chapter and what do you know of its
> ambitions ?


However you cut it this is advertising pure and simple. Yes it's buried
behind a convenience function and I have no doubt the French chapter are
doing all manner of interesting and constructive things, but who's to decide
what is and what is not appropriate? If it's such a good idea, why is it not
deployed centrally (with appropriate policies) so all chapters can take
advantage of it (safely)?

Anyway how WMF interacts with its chapters is not the conversation I joined
the list to contribute to so I'll leave it to you guys to nut it out between
yourselves. Just bear in mind that the reputation of the organisation as a
whole is easily tarnished by the wrong well-intended initiative and the
proceeds are a drop in the ocean compared to what is raised by donation and
that a fraction of what is theoretically possible.

Sam (who's often enough in france to consider joining the chapter)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Yaroslav M. Blanter
Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to the
authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that
it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgements at their pages?

I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: "You have put a
picture under a free licence, now do not complain". This is fine of course
but does not encourage the authors very much.

Cheers
Yaroslav


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
You forget that as the copyright holder of your picture, you are free to
sell copies of your pictures as well. You are even allowed to provide your
material under a different license. The only thing you are not allowed is to
revoke the license you provided your material to Commons under.

Consider, a person decides to buy a printed copy of any picture from
Commons, the author can live all over our globe, there is an amount paid of
15 EURO including package and posting there is a margin of 1,50 EURO for the
Wiki side of things. The cost of paying the author can be as high as 18 EURO
just on banking fees. SO what is to be done? Posting a message,,, it takes 3
minutes to do this. I would consider this spam, I do not want this but you
do... A volunteers is supposed to do this ? He does not feel like it...

When a print is produced, a true value added service is provided. I do not
have a printer that allows me to print poster sized. By providing a service
like this, the value to our readers is enhanced. When money is going to the
French chapter, they will be able to do more.
Thanks,
      GerardM

2009/1/23 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>

> Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to the
> authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that
> it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgments at their pages?
>
> I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: "You have put a
> picture under a free licence, now do not complain". This is fine of course
> but does not encourage the authors very much.
>
> Cheers
> Yaroslav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Mark (Markie)
so as long as money goes to a chapter your saying it would be fine to say:

*Put an amazon or ebay link on every product related page
*Use referrer ids on wikis to websites that allow it
*and the dreaded advertising as long as the money goes to chapter/WMF

is this really what your saying?

mark

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Hoi,
> You forget that as the copyright holder of your picture, you are free to
> sell copies of your pictures as well. You are even allowed to provide your
> material under a different license. The only thing you are not allowed is
> to
> revoke the license you provided your material to Commons under.
>
> Consider, a person decides to buy a printed copy of any picture from
> Commons, the author can live all over our globe, there is an amount paid of
> 15 EURO including package and posting there is a margin of 1,50 EURO for
> the
> Wiki side of things. The cost of paying the author can be as high as 18
> EURO
> just on banking fees. SO what is to be done? Posting a message,,, it takes
> 3
> minutes to do this. I would consider this spam, I do not want this but you
> do... A volunteers is supposed to do this ? He does not feel like it...
>
> When a print is produced, a true value added service is provided. I do not
> have a printer that allows me to print poster sized. By providing a service
> like this, the value to our readers is enhanced. When money is going to the
> French chapter, they will be able to do more.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> 2009/1/23 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
>
> > Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to
> the
> > authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount that
> > it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgments at their pages?
> >
> > I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: "You have put a
> > picture under a free licence, now do not complain". This is fine of
> course
> > but does not encourage the authors very much.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Yaroslav
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Commons and The Year of the Picture

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
No it is not, and this should be obvious because I never mentioned amazon
nor ebay. There is no comparison so do not be daft.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/1/23 Mark (Markie) <[hidden email]>

> so as long as money goes to a chapter your saying it would be fine to say:
>
> *Put an amazon or ebay link on every product related page
> *Use referrer ids on wikis to websites that allow it
> *and the dreaded advertising as long as the money goes to chapter/WMF
>
> is this really what your saying?
>
> mark
>
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 8:12 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > You forget that as the copyright holder of your picture, you are free to
> > sell copies of your pictures as well. You are even allowed to provide
> your
> > material under a different license. The only thing you are not allowed is
> > to
> > revoke the license you provided your material to Commons under.
> >
> > Consider, a person decides to buy a printed copy of any picture from
> > Commons, the author can live all over our globe, there is an amount paid
> of
> > 15 EURO including package and posting there is a margin of 1,50 EURO for
> > the
> > Wiki side of things. The cost of paying the author can be as high as 18
> > EURO
> > just on banking fees. SO what is to be done? Posting a message,,, it
> takes
> > 3
> > minutes to do this. I would consider this spam, I do not want this but
> you
> > do... A volunteers is supposed to do this ? He does not feel like it...
> >
> > When a print is produced, a true value added service is provided. I do
> not
> > have a printer that allows me to print poster sized. By providing a
> service
> > like this, the value to our readers is enhanced. When money is going to
> the
> > French chapter, they will be able to do more.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> > 2009/1/23 Yaroslav M. Blanter <[hidden email]>
> >
> > > Did actually anybody ever considered paying some part of the profit to
> > the
> > > authors of the pictures? Or at least, if this is such a tiny amount
> that
> > > it would not make sense, placing some acknowledgments at their pages?
> > >
> > > I am sorry to say, now I see quite an opposite attitude: "You have put
> a
> > > picture under a free licence, now do not complain". This is fine of
> > course
> > > but does not encourage the authors very much.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Yaroslav
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > foundation-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123