Getting rid of "best before"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
27 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Getting rid of "best before"

Magnus Manske-2
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
templates and the message they convey.

Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
than that.

What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
reason.

Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
image resurrection capability, should calm this.

Magnus


[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
[2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

Ejdzej Wikipedysta
2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.

If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say,
100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)

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

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

Samuli Lintula
> 2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
>> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
>> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
>> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
>> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
>> image resurrection capability, should calm this.
>
> If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say,
> 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)

I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)

But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared
tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged
images:
1. Vandalism tagging (rare)
2. Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art)
3. Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion.
This is the most common group.

These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea.
Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent
better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.

--
Ystävällisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula

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

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On 15/11/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.

I think the thing holding up deletion rates is the need to delink
images. So we have the proposed CommonsDelinker but I'm not sure what
its status is at the moment. I think it's almost ready to go (if the
will is there). Orgullomoore is a pretty busy chap I think, but it
would be good to have a few people trained in its use, because it is
that important to Commons that we wouldn't want it to stop working if
one person gets busy.

If/when CommonsDelinker is introduced, I predict the backlogs will
dissipate pretty rapidly, probably a month or so.

I personally would not throw my weight behind a bot with deletion
rights, but maybe community will is changing. I don't think it's
changed that rapidly, though.

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

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

Flominator
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
"Magnus Manske" <[hidden email]> wrote on Wednesday, November
15, 2006 10:05 AM:

> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.

I had the same idea yesterday :)

Combined with a SHORT and MULTILINGUAL message automatically posted ONCE on
the talk page of the user who uploaded it and maybe even combined with email
the user would be awesome. The message could say that the image was deleted
because ....  and that it could be restored if the uploader posts a message
at ...

That bot could deleted the nld-category of today - 10 or something and we
would have much less work.

If we'd even combine that bot with a delinker bot, it would be like a dream
came true.

Regards,

Flo

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

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

Pedro Sanchez-2
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On 11/15/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
> that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
> templates and the message they convey.
>
> Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
> etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
> the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
> equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
> than that.
>
> What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
> this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
> information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
> have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
> reason.
>
> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> image resurrection capability, should calm this.
>
> Magnus
>
>
> [1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
> [2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

Actually, the template said "the image  WILL be deleted" ...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:PD-Soviet&oldid=3049387
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

Barcex
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
Hi Magnus,

  First let me say that I'm a big fan of the Bad Old Ones toy, and an everyday user of it.

  My concern about the automated deletion of "bad old ones" is that sometimes I find that the nsd/nld templates were not well added to the image; i.e. there are no reasons to use that templates, the image can be saved with a simple edit completing the missing info, or the uploader has not been notified.

  I wonder if an automated deletion based just on the existence of a template that anyone can add will delete valid pictures. Of course, deletions can be undone, but the error has to be detected, and will be difficult to know where was the image used at the time of deletion.

  I think that the "burden of proof" on source and license is on the uploader, so it is valid pushing him to specify without ambiguity that data. But deleting images without at least a simple human review could not be convenient. Perhaps we can find an intermediate solution: reviewing with Bad Old Ones and when clicking "delete" on that tool having a bot delinking the image also.

Barcex

2006/11/15, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
templates and the message they convey.

Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
than that.

What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
reason.

Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
image resurrection capability, should calm this.

Magnus


[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
[2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
_______________________________________________
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: Getting rid of "best before"

bawolff
I think if you made it so it deleted the image but not the image
description page, would be much preferable then deleting both. For
example, currently if something shows up as gone at commonsticker, its
a real hunt to find out what was wrong with the image. Sometimes you
get a good deletion summary, but most of the time you get something
like /speedy delete/ or /against policy/. Just based on that, I have
no details on what went wrong (besides that something did go wrong in
the upload). if you used a bot, the situation would get worse. However
if you deleted the image, and undeleted the page with a little
template that says something along the lines of, the image that used
to be here is gone because {{{1}}}. Info here no longer applies to
anything but is still kept. That way, its much more easy for me to try
to find the information for that picture needed, or fix it  in sme
other way. ~~~

-bawolff

On 11/15/06, Barcex <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Magnus,
>
>   First let me say that I'm a big fan of the Bad Old Ones toy, and an
> everyday user of it.
>
>   My concern about the automated deletion of "bad old ones" is that
> sometimes I find that the nsd/nld templates were not well added to the
> image; i.e. there are no reasons to use that templates, the image can be
> saved with a simple edit completing the missing info, or the uploader has
> not been notified.
>
>   I wonder if an automated deletion based just on the existence of a
> template that anyone can add will delete valid pictures. Of course,
> deletions can be undone, but the error has to be detected, and will be
> difficult to know where was the image used at the time of deletion.
>
>   I think that the "burden of proof" on source and license is on the
> uploader, so it is valid pushing him to specify without ambiguity that data.
> But deleting images without at least a simple human review could not be
> convenient. Perhaps we can find an intermediate solution: reviewing with Bad
> Old Ones and when clicking "delete" on that tool having a bot delinking the
> image also.
>
> Barcex
>
> 2006/11/15, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]>:
> > When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
> > that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
> > templates and the message they convey.
> >
> > Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
> > etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
> > the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
> > equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
> > than that.
> >
> > What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
> > this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
> > information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
> > have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
> > reason.
> >
> > Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
> > no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
> > virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
> > edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
> > image resurrection capability, should calm this.
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> >
> > [1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
> > [2]
> http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

Flominator
"bawolff" <[hidden email]> wrote on Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:22
AM:


> if you used a bot, the situation would get worse.
One could tell the bot to write a decent summary like "been in nld since
...."

Regards,

Flo

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

Re: Getting rid of "best before"

White Cat
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
I believe that is not happening due to technical limitations. Currently we just subst: current day/month/year. I would like that though.

It takes longer than 7 days because there are WAY too many of them to delete and unlinking them is sometimes a serious pain (pd-soviet images are particularly cluttering the backlog)

PS (unrelated): Magnus your tool has issues with .gif images I believe. I do not know if you fixed this recently.
PS (unrelated): If your tool would detect "http" (possible source) and treated such images differently it would be of great help since sometimes people forget to remove the no source template. (sometimes it is a hunt to find a url in a block of text on the tool)

On 11/15/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
When I just read about admins getting scolded for deleting an image
that was long past its "due date", I thought about the nature of the
templates and the message they convey.

Currently, they say something like "this image needs more source info"
etc., and give the date the template was added. If nothing changes,
the image *may* be deleted after, what, a month? This would be the
equivalent of "best before" - in reality, it might last a lot longer
than that.

What if the attitude of the templates were changed? "This image lacks
this and that. It will be deleted on XXXX-YY-ZZ unless this
information is provided." My tool [2] can be used to find images that
have reached their final use-by date, and could be deleted with good
reason.

Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
image resurrection capability, should calm this.

Magnus


[1] http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/bad_old_ones.php
[2] http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/samsung_develops_machine_gun_sentry_robot_costs_200k.php
_______________________________________________
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: Getting rid of 'best before'

White Cat
In reply to this post by Samuli Lintula
I'd appreciate some sort of a mechanism (maybe java backup) that will allow me to better check the images.

It takes too much time to process every individual entry with the detail I'd like to put it. And after the 1000th delete it starts to get annoying to manually check history of the image, contributions of the tagger/uploader and etc.

We need a bot to at the very least warn the uploaders if they weren't warned. I wouldn't however want a bot that starts deleting things. No matter how hard a bot is written, it is possible to trick a bot into doing destructive stuff.

Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker gets blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are going to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative. If we have a commons delinker working, the ticker probably wouldn't have to report deleted images though it would report the tagging.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One nice thing to do is perhaps to break the deletion processes such as {{no license}}, {{no source}}. {{pd-art}}, {{pd-old}} images tagged with {{no source}} should be a separate process.

I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates. Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As it stands it is clear that commons is a failing system. We should really have more tools here on commons at our disposal. It should take me two clicks to review and delete an image.

Needless to say the nonsense leaking to us from es.wiki is creating additional problems.

On 11/15/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
>> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
>> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
>> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
>> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
>> image resurrection capability, should calm this.
>
> If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say,
> 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)

I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)

But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared
tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged
images:
1. Vandalism tagging (rare)
2. Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art)
3. Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion.
This is the most common group.

These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea.
Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent
better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.

--
Ystävällisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula

_______________________________________________
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: Getting rid of 'best before'

White Cat
In reply to this post by Samuli Lintula
I'd appreciate some sort of a mechanism (maybe java backup) that will allow me to better check the images.

It takes too much time to process every individual entry with the detail I'd like to put it. And after the 1000th delete it starts to get annoying to manually check history of the image, contributions of the tagger/uploader and etc.

We need a bot to at the very least warn the uploaders if they weren't warned. I wouldn't however want a bot that starts deleting things. No matter how hard a bot is written, it is possible to trick a bot into doing destructive stuff.

On 11/15/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 2006/11/15, Magnus Manske:
>> Theoretically, one could write a bot which could do the deletions, so
>> no admins get scolded. The idea of a deletion-bot with admin rights (a
>> virtual equivalent of [2];-) might sound scary, but setting it for "no
>> edits for a month since addition of the template", combined with the
>> image resurrection capability, should calm this.
>
> If someone runs such bot, please don't delete more that, let's say,
> 100 images a day, otherwise CommonsTicker gets stucked :)

I'm not a bot, but I have deleted up to 1000 images per day :)

But seriously, when I've been in a deleting mood, I have also spared
tagged images. There are at least three kind of good images amongst tagged
images:
1. Vandalism tagging (rare)
2. Ineligible (chemical formulas, PD-art)
3. Images where information has been provided after tagging for deletion.
This is the most common group.

These are also reasons why a bot wouldn't be an extremely good idea.
Although considering that the time wasted on deleting could be spent
better, I'm not totally against a "monster bot", either.

--
Ystävällisin terveisin,
Samuli Lintula

_______________________________________________
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: Getting rid of 'best before'

Flominator
In reply to this post by White Cat
Cool Cat wrote:


> It takes too much time to process every individual entry with the detail
> I'd like to put it.

Is there any way a bot could help you?


> We need a bot to at the very least warn the uploaders if they weren't
> warned.

Doesn't en.wp have such a bot?


> Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot.

Marco is working on it ....


Regards.

Flo

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

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

Magnus Manske-2
In reply to this post by White Cat
On 11/22/06, Cool Cat <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip>

> I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand
> deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is
> theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate
> of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates.
> Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As it stands it is clear that commons is a failing system. We should really
> have more tools here on commons at our disposal. It should take me two
> clicks to review and delete an image.

I'll be pretty busy with other things (commonly refered to as "real
life";-) for another week or so, but after that I'll have time to
build new toys^W tools. Maybe you (that is, anyone concerned) should
whip up a page with what you need. Preferably something I can do on
the toolserver, as it really cuts development/bug fixing times.

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

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

White Cat
I am starting a [[Commons:Power toys]] page for prospective requests. I'd like to add that I want to avoid bureaucracy. This is just to brainstorm ideas.
     - Cool Cat

On 11/23/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 11/22/06, Cool Cat <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip>

> I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand
> deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is
> theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate
> of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates.
> Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> As it stands it is clear that commons is a failing system. We should really
> have more tools here on commons at our disposal. It should take me two
> clicks to review and delete an image.

I'll be pretty busy with other things (commonly refered to as "real
life";-) for another week or so, but after that I'll have time to
build new toys^W tools. Maybe you (that is, anyone concerned) should
whip up a page with what you need. Preferably something I can do on
the toolserver, as it really cuts development/bug fixing times.

Magnus
_______________________________________________
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: Getting rid of 'best before'

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by White Cat
On 23/11/06, Cool Cat <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker gets
> blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are going
> to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative.

I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop
any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.)
If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely
needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating
projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems
counterproductive.

> I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand
> deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is
> theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate
> of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates.
> Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.

Nice of you to notice, it's been like that as long as I've been paying
attention, too. ;)

Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any
sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys
can come up with.

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

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

geni
On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop
> any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.)

If the content becomes so unstable it becomes inposible to use people
would stop useing it.

> If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely
> needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating
> projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems
> counterproductive.

That would depend on what exactly commons wants to be. En wikipedia
has ~300K free images hosted localy so in some ways commons is already
not performing that function.
--
geni
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

David Gerard-2
On 23/11/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> That would depend on what exactly commons wants to be. En wikipedia
> has ~300K free images hosted localy so in some ways commons is already
> not performing that function.


I would call that a local interface problem rather than a conscious
avoidance of Commons.

I always upload free images directly to Commons, but when you click
"Upload file", [[Special:Upload]] says you should "consider" uploading
it to Commons. Uploading to en: is just lots easier unless you know
your way around Wikimedia.

And when you click on the link to upload to Commons, it tells you you
need a login there too. "What, *another* login? I'll just upload to
en:, it's much easier." SUL! SUL!

By the way, Commons admins may care to compare:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload

I wonder if anyone is up to translating the harsh text of the second
example into enough languages ... certainly into Spanish.


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

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

geni
On 11/23/06, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23/11/06, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > That would depend on what exactly commons wants to be. En wikipedia
> > has ~300K free images hosted localy so in some ways commons is already
> > not performing that function.
>
>
> I would call that a local interface problem rather than a conscious
> avoidance of Commons.
>
> I always upload free images directly to Commons, but when you click
> "Upload file", [[Special:Upload]] says you should "consider" uploading
> it to Commons. Uploading to en: is just lots easier unless you know
> your way around Wikimedia.
>
> And when you click on the link to upload to Commons, it tells you you
> need a login there too. "What, *another* login? I'll just upload to
> en:, it's much easier." SUL! SUL!
>

I think commons should be somewhat grateful for this fact. It means
the images from EN have been somewhat filtered.

> By the way, Commons admins may care to compare:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload
>

The en one has been criticised for its "angry fruit salad" look.

It also fails to include the image details template that commons seems
to use as standard.

> I wonder if anyone is up to translating the harsh text of the second
> example into enough languages ... certainly into Spanish.
>

Russian already exists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ru

En upload also includes more licence selection traps (I should add
some more at some point for invalid fair use stuff) than commons
something commons might want to look into

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

Re: Getting rid of 'best before'

White Cat
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
  Yo,
  I think we need to be a bit more persuasive about the cooperation thing. We aren't even sending angry mail when a local wiki causes a setback.
  Local wikis should understand that by unlinking, we are doing them a favor. We are not even required to unlink any images instead  we are simply recommended in doing so.
  All local wikis must cut back on bureaucracy on any and all issues involving commons. We aren't able to get anything done because of the retarded amount of bureaucracy. A good example would be the delinking bots to this problem.
  Identifying a problem is the first step in seeking a solution.
      - Cool Cat

On 11/23/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/11/06, Cool Cat <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Having said that we absolutely need a delinking bot. If the delinker gets
> blocked in local wikis they cease to become our problem. If wikis are going
> to use our content they definitely need to be cooperative.

I think this is not the best attitude. (Especially since we can't stop
any Wikimedia wiki using our content, so it's a kinda hollow threat.)
If Commons is going to serve its primary useful purpose, it definitely
needs the acceptance and cooperation of Wikimedia wikis. Alienating
projects with a "if you don't like it, tough" attitude seems
counterproductive.

> I really want better deletion tools as I am required to do a thousand
> deletions per day to keep up with backlog (as it is now). It is
> theoretically impossible for us to deal with the commons backlog at the rate
> of increasing backlog versus the rate of successfully admin candidates.
> Commons backlog is actualy already out of control.

Nice of you to notice, it's been like that as long as I've been paying
attention, too. ;)

Anyway getting Magnus on side is always a good start to any
sideproject for the Commons, so I look forward to seeing what you guys
can come up with.

regards,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
_______________________________________________
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
12