Direct copy to commons

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

Direct copy to commons

Magnus Manske
My Commons helper tool [1] can now directly copy an image from a
wikipedia to the commons, using a perl script written by Eloquence.

Note that this is now the default behaviour for the "CO" button on
"missing images" as well.

You can also call the commonshelper with GET parameters (in the URL).
This might assist an organized effort to copy GFDL/PD/CC images to the
commons.

Magnus


[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

xkernigh
Magnus Manske <magnus.manske@...> writes:

> My Commons helper tool [1] can now directly copy an image from a
> wikipedia to the commons, using a perl script written by Eloquence.
>
> Note that this is now the default behaviour for the "CO" button on
> "missing images" as well.

Can this be extended to also copy images from other Wikimedia projects,
particularily Wikibooks and Wikisource?

Actually I have hacked Eloquence's script to go in reverse, downloading
images instead of uploading them. I have not made the script public yet,
but basically I download files, edit files.txt, and reupload them to a
different wiki.

-- [[User:Kernigh]]
   http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kernigh

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Adi & Nadav Perez
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
It can't habdle unicode... can't be used for non-latin wikis.
can something be done about that?
thanks
Felagund
----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Manske" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 4:27 PM
Subject: [Commons-l] Direct copy to commons


> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Magnus Manske
Adi & Nadav Perez schrieb:
> It can't habdle unicode... can't be used for non-latin wikis.
> can something be done about that?
>  
Example?

Magnus


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by xkernigh
Kernigh schrieb:

> Magnus Manske <magnus.manske@...> writes:
>
>  
>> My Commons helper tool [1] can now directly copy an image from a
>> wikipedia to the commons, using a perl script written by Eloquence.
>>
>> Note that this is now the default behaviour for the "CO" button on
>> "missing images" as well.
>>    
>
> Can this be extended to also copy images from other Wikimedia projects,
> particularily Wikibooks and Wikisource?
>  
Should work now (as well as UTF8 names). Didn't try it, though.
> Actually I have hacked Eloquence's script to go in reverse, downloading
> images instead of uploading them. I have not made the script public yet,
> but basically I download files, edit files.txt, and reupload them to a
> different wiki.
>  
That's what I do :-)

I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible
images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet.
These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would
be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en
block to the commons. Would that be desirable?

Magnus


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Brianna Laugher
> I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible
> images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet.
> These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would
> be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en
> block to the commons. Would that be desirable?

Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever,
do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no.
Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses
and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are
often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in
requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a
license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For
self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items
should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.

Brianna
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
2006/5/4, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>:

> I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible
> images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet.
> These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would
> be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en
> block to the commons. Would that be desirable?

I suppose 'compatible' here means 'under a commons-approved license'?

I would add an option to add categories - a picture on Commons that
neither has categories nor is on a subject page is of little use, at
least much less than one that is.

--
Andre Engels, [hidden email]
ICQ: 6260644  --  Skype: a_engels
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Adi & Nadav Perez
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
I tested this one:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:00448r.jpg&oldid=1839376
Felagund
----- Original Message -----
From: "Magnus Manske" <[hidden email]>
To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Direct copy to commons


> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher schrieb:

>> I plan on another script that looks for, say, 20 commons-compatible
>> images on a wikipedia (or wikibooks) which are /not/ on commons yet.
>> These should be displayed with thumbnail images, links, etc. There would
>> be a checkbox in front of each, and the checked ones can be uploaded en
>> block to the commons. Would that be desirable?
>>    
>
> Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever,
> do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no.
> Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses
> and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are
> often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in
> requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a
> license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For
> self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items
> should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
>  
I put a version of what I imagined earlier live at
    http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php

I have disabeled the upload part, so it is currently only usable as a
"bad license hunter". The image name leads to the description page, the
image links to its "big" version.
An image on commons with the same name (so it exists) is displayed in
the "commons" column; also, a note is "commons" is mentioned in the
description, indicating that the image is on commons under another name.

Magnus


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

signature.asc (257 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Jimmy Wales
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever,
> do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no.
> Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses
> and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are
> often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in
> requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a
> license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For
> self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items
> should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.

I agree very strongly with Brianna on this.  Commons should be extremely
hardcore about sourcing and license checking... this is a great point in
the overall workflow to do a rigorous second check on anything being
brought from individual projects.


-
#######################################################################
#    Office: 1-727-231-0101       |  Free Culture and  Free Knowledge #
#    http://www.wikipedia.org     |     Building a free world         #
#######################################################################

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

jwales.vcf (286 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Direct copy to commons

Magnus Manske
Jimmy Wales wrote:

> Brianna Laugher wrote:
>  
>> Uh... if it just says "these images have been tagged GFDL/PD/whatever,
>> do you want to transfer them to the Commons?" I would have to say no.
>> Transferring images is a good opportunity to re-examine the licenses
>> and sources provided for many images on local projects, which are
>> often quite suspect! Transferrers should be quite stringent in
>> requiring a source (that if online, is actually *checked*) and a
>> license justification - for non "(PD/GFDL/whatever)-self" items. For
>> self created items, some common sense is needed... low res items
>> should generally be treated with a great deal of suspicion.
>>    
>
> I agree very strongly with Brianna on this.  Commons should be extremely
> hardcore about sourcing and license checking... this is a great point in
> the overall workflow to do a rigorous second check on anything being
> brought from individual projects.
>  
As someone also working on de.wikipedia, which is quite strict on
license issues itself, I totally agree. The decision about an image
being suitable for the commons has to be made on a case-by-case basis.

However, in the light of hundreds of thousands (didn't count them all)
of suitable images "trapped" on local wikipedias, I merely strive to
provide a means to easily assess the states of images, then take
appropriate action. The tool in question can be used to identify images
without suitable information for the given wikipedia, something which
does not involve commons at all.

On the other hand, an image tagged with "{{GFDL-self}}", a text like
"made this myself", and a good-but-non-professionally looking image -
who would go back to the user and say "Well, I want to upload this on
commons, but you have convince me you took this yourself first!"? At
most, one would check for consumer-type camera EXIF data, and then copy
it to commons in good faith, right?

Try [1] (will take a minute or so to load fully), and you will see that
there are some cases clearly *not* destined for the commons, some
doubtful cases, and some that are (maybe with a little additional
checking) clearly suited to be copied to the commons.

With the demands for making commons the default upload site, the
tendency is clear: put all multimedia content that is suitable for
commons there, so all wikimedia projects (and others) can benefit from
them. I merely try to ease that effort.

Magnus


[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/pushforcommons.php?language=en&max=20
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l