Image donations?

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

Image donations?

Magnus Manske
I was wondering if there is some kind of organized effort to ask
photographers and image agencies for donations (read: GFDL- or
CC-licensing) of images.

I am thinking especially of images that we cannot take ourselves; dead
celebrities for example (and no, don't go grave-digging ;-)

There must be a huge amount of photos that have next no no commercial
value anymore, because they are not good enough for a magazine cover,
but would do well for documenting an encyclopedia article. Of course, we
would prominently credit the source in the image description (which will
be transcluded to every wikipedia that uses it), or even in the image
title. Images could be watermarked, of course, and for largeer amounts
of photos, we'd create a category, gallery and all. Repeaded mentioning
(in a good light!) in a project of the wikimedia magnitude might be
worth more than paid advertisement, fo virtually no cost.

We could even offer a service: I'm sure some of us have
(semi-)professional film scanners (I do). Deal goes like this: mail us
your films (encyclopedia/commons-style only; not your family picknick;-)
and a note that releases them under GFDL/CC/PD/whatever, and we'll
upload them in high-res on commons, where you can download them. Free
film digitization!


With people on commons obviously interested in media, there must be some
of us with ties to "the industry" who can initiate such contacts. "The
Yorck Project" already donated a lot of PD images, as you might
remember. If we can get just a few photographers/companies to release
images as well, others might follow just to not lag behind.


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

Re: Image donations?

SJ-5
Museums are good repositories of such information; also non-digitized
archives.  For them digitization is an expense; if we can reliably
offer this for free, many will be glad to release copyright in
exchange for more usable access to their own materials.

The Library of Congress has a sizable collection of materials that
they want to distribute more broadly; it is indeed already PD or
equivalent, but not digitized -- or more commonly, digitized somehow
but not in many formats, not classified, not easily available.

A commons-project to create form requests and a queue for processing
inbound content would be useful.

You could say the same about archived books that have no commercial
value anymore.  The same analysis goes for processing book materials
donated to wikisource; which requires image processing and OCR and
should perhaps have a commons aspect (raw page images, raw ocr output
files, images from within the book extracted from the raw page
images), and a wikisource text aspect (text transcript, translations).
 And again ties to the book industry would be useful here.

Finally, source texts that are educationally useful could generate a
third set of materials : living wikibooks built on their foundation,
updated and improved over time.

SJ
<copynig all 3 project lists>

On 6/15/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I was wondering if there is some kind of organized effort to ask
> photographers and image agencies for donations (read: GFDL- or
> CC-licensing) of images.
>
> I am thinking especially of images that we cannot take ourselves; dead
> celebrities for example (and no, don't go grave-digging ;-)
>
> There must be a huge amount of photos that have next no no commercial
> value anymore, because they are not good enough for a magazine cover,
> but would do well for documenting an encyclopedia article. Of course, we
> would prominently credit the source in the image description (which will
> be transcluded to every wikipedia that uses it), or even in the image
> title. Images could be watermarked, of course, and for largeer amounts
> of photos, we'd create a category, gallery and all. Repeaded mentioning
> (in a good light!) in a project of the wikimedia magnitude might be
> worth more than paid advertisement, fo virtually no cost.
>
> We could even offer a service: I'm sure some of us have
> (semi-)professional film scanners (I do). Deal goes like this: mail us
> your films (encyclopedia/commons-style only; not your family picknick;-)
> and a note that releases them under GFDL/CC/PD/whatever, and we'll
> upload them in high-res on commons, where you can download them. Free
> film digitization!
>
>
> With people on commons obviously interested in media, there must be some
> of us with ties to "the industry" who can initiate such contacts. "The
> Yorck Project" already donated a lot of PD images, as you might
> remember. If we can get just a few photographers/companies to release
> images as well, others might follow just to not lag behind.
>
>
> Magnus
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


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

Re: Image donations?

Delphine Ménard
> > We could even offer a service: I'm sure some of us have
> > (semi-)professional film scanners (I do). Deal goes like this: mail us
> > your films (encyclopedia/commons-style only; not your family picknick;-)
> > and a note that releases them under GFDL/CC/PD/whatever, and we'll
> > upload them in high-res on commons, where you can download them. Free
> > film digitization!

On the subject of digitizing, you might be interested by the project
Wikimedia Deutschland just completed, that of digitizing a 16th
century book for Wikisource.

http://www.wikimedia.de/index.php?p=127

It might be an interesting thing to have the chapters and/or the
Foundation vouch for the people proposing this kind of service. I
believe not everyone is ready to give their pics/files whatever to
people they've never seen and who just say "I have a scanner, I can do
this for you". There are practical issues to take into consideration
which go from conservations of the documents to returning them to
their owner.

Compiling a list of people interested by such a project though would
be indeed a great idea, and commons probably is the place to start.



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

Re: Image donations?

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
On 6/15/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I was wondering if there is some kind of organized effort to ask
> photographers and image agencies for donations (read: GFDL- or
> CC-licensing) of images.

Last year I thought a bit about the idea of having a dedicated "image
fundraising" campaign for Commons, which could perhaps run alongside
the next regular fundraiser. The idea is that there would be a
simplified upload process, and a post-upload vetting system to
determine which material is actually useful. I proposed this to
another Wikimedian, who unfortunately did not end up finding the time
to work on it. Here are a few of the mock-ups I made on paper:

http://scireview.de/wiki/donations1.jpg
http://scireview.de/wiki/donations2.jpg
http://scireview.de/wiki/donations3.jpg

(Sorry for the poor quality, this is done with a camera, not a scanner.)

The idea is, as is hopefully clear, to have a simple two-step process
for uploading and describing the pictures. All the licensing stuff
would be made as simple as possible, with reasonable default choices.
Aside from advertising this online, we could approach some
publications systematically. Given how much Wikipedia is loved by the
media, I think getting a story out there "Wikipedia asks for photo
donations" wouldn't be too hard.

The actual post-upload review would be done in a collaborative review
process similar to my FlickrLickr project. In fact, the FlickrLickr
codebase might be a useful basis for this.

Magnus, are you interested in working on such a project? Anyone else?

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

Re: Image donations?

Brianna Laugher
On 20/06/06, Erik Moeller <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 6/15/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I was wondering if there is some kind of organized effort to ask
> > photographers and image agencies for donations (read: GFDL- or
> > CC-licensing) of images.
>
> Last year I thought a bit about the idea of having a dedicated "image
> fundraising" campaign for Commons, which could perhaps run alongside
> the next regular fundraiser. The idea is that there would be a
> simplified upload process, and a post-upload vetting system to
> determine which material is actually useful.

Er...you mean for the general public? I support seeking image
donations for historical topics or specific holes in our coverage, but
I don't know that we need more general amatuer
my-dog-in-my-backyard,sunset-over-my-fence,my-street-my-school-my-car
whatever photos. It seems to me the vetting system would have to
discard 90% of what they were offered, so I rather question if it
would be a worthwhile exercise.

Also given how much trouble even Wikipedians have understanding that
WM content can be used commercially, it might be very difficult to
succinctly put across the extent to which a free license is free.

Also, and this is a more general comment, there is still quite a
disconnect between Commons and the projects, although it is definitely
getting better as more projects switch to Commons-only and just time
goes on. Sometimes there is a wealth of good pictures on Commons and
no link on the WP article, or worse still no image at all. Sometimes
(or often?) the beautiful FP nominations are not used in any Wikimedia
project, anywhere!! Now I really wonder about that. We almost need
another "project" of Commons people pushing the best content to all
the WPs (they tend to be the most straightforward to illustrate for
outsiders, plus maybe Wiktionary). So, I don't see that there is a
good point to ask for image donations if we are not going to have
people ensuring that the images will actually be used in some
Wikimedia project. Same with the FlickrLickr content. Sitting around
Commons is nice for us, but it could be so much better...

and yes I know in some cases a Commons gallery is a natural extension
of a W* page. not every image has to be a lead photo, obviously.

Back to the topic of image donations. Not just image donations,
actually - it would be really good if we could find out if there were
some unis with, for example, recorded speech excerpts or phonemes or
whatever, that they were willing to donate. Someone would have to
convert them to OGG. This would be fantastic support for Wikibooks
language-learning books as well as linguistics articles in /all/
language Wikipedias. I don't know how good our recordings are of
clicks and trills, or uvuvular sounds, for example, are. It would be
great to have native speakers' recordings.

I just wonder how hard it is to convince unis to tighten their grip on
the IP rights...

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

Re: Image donations?

Kevin Gamble-2

> Er...you mean for the general public? I support seeking image
> donations for historical topics or specific holes in our coverage, but
> I don't know that we need more general amatuer
> my-dog-in-my-backyard,sunset-over-my-fence,my-street-my-school-my-car
> whatever photos. It seems to me the vetting system would have to
> discard 90% of what they were offered, so I rather question if it
> would be a worthwhile exercise.

I would think there could be some large university collections, etc. that
would be well worth making an effort to acquire (not that that's the right
word). I think a strategy to go after some of these extensive collections
would be well worth the effort.

Kevin


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

Re: Image donations?

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 6/20/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Er...you mean for the general public? I support seeking image
> donations for historical topics or specific holes in our coverage, but
> I don't know that we need more general amatuer
> my-dog-in-my-backyard,sunset-over-my-fence,my-street-my-school-my-car
> whatever photos. It seems to me the vetting system would have to
> discard 90% of what they were offered, so I rather question if it
> would be a worthwhile exercise.

Maybe. I think if we clearly define, in big friendly letters and with
pretty icons, what we want and what we don't want, we could get a lot
of good stuff. People aren't stupid. I suspect that there are quite a
few amateur photos of celebrities, for instance. In any case, the
campaign would be two-sided: an interface for instantly sharing media,
and a contact form for negotiations. If we advertise this broadly, I
think we could get contacts from places we don't expect.

> Back to the topic of image donations. Not just image donations,
> actually - it would be really good if we could find out if there were
> some unis with, for example, recorded speech excerpts or phonemes or
> whatever, that they were willing to donate. Someone would have to
> convert them to OGG. This would be fantastic support for Wikibooks
> language-learning books as well as linguistics articles in /all/
> language Wikipedias. I don't know how good our recordings are of
> clicks and trills, or uvuvular sounds, for example, are. It would be
> great to have native speakers' recordings.

If we organize a "media donation" campaign well and make it part of
the next fundraiser, I think it could lead to such people coming to us
and talking to us. But I do think we should be open for contributions
from the general public. Yes, a lot of images uploaded to Commons
aren't used. But from my own checks of the FlickrLickr uploads, a lot
of them _are_ used. FlickrLickr also automatically generates wikitext
for galleries like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:FlickrLickr/Slice_55

This is meant for easy copy and pasting of links into Wikipedia
articles, and I encourage all "my" FlickrLickr reviewers to add images
to articles wherever they can. If we use a similar, somewhat more
refined process for a media donations campaign, I think it could work.

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

Re: Image donations?

Magnus Manske


Erik Moeller schrieb:

> On 6/20/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>Er...you mean for the general public? I support seeking image
>>donations for historical topics or specific holes in our coverage, but
>>I don't know that we need more general amatuer
>>my-dog-in-my-backyard,sunset-over-my-fence,my-street-my-school-my-car
>>whatever photos. It seems to me the vetting system would have to
>>discard 90% of what they were offered, so I rather question if it
>>would be a worthwhile exercise.
>
>
> Maybe. I think if we clearly define, in big friendly letters and with
> pretty icons, what we want and what we don't want, we could get a lot
> of good stuff. People aren't stupid. I suspect that there are quite a
> few amateur photos of celebrities, for instance. In any case, the
> campaign would be two-sided: an interface for instantly sharing media,
> and a contact form for negotiations. If we advertise this broadly, I
> think we could get contacts from places we don't expect.

I don't have pretty icons yet, but a working form with "this is missing"
feedback and a simplified license selection:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/image_donations.php

I've added my default tools header so those of you interested can view
the source.

As some of you know, I can use the Eloquence bot to automatically upload
images to the commons. I didn't add that capability to the script yet,
as it is merely a demonstration.

When you "upload" an image, the script will generate a demo
"Information" template, as well as a (yet to be created)
"{{check-automatic-upload}}" template that will ease checking for admins.

Comments, please :-)

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

Re: Image donations?

Brianna Laugher
On 21/06/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I don't have pretty icons yet, but a working form with "this is missing"
> feedback and a simplified license selection:
>
> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/image_donations.php
>
> I've added my default tools header so those of you interested can view
> the source.
>
> As some of you know, I can use the Eloquence bot to automatically upload
> images to the commons. I didn't add that capability to the script yet,
> as it is merely a demonstration.
>
> When you "upload" an image, the script will generate a demo
> "Information" template, as well as a (yet to be created)
> "{{check-automatic-upload}}" template that will ease checking for admins.
>
> Comments, please :-)

* Please forbid any image below say 800px on one side, and ALL mobile
phone pictures. They are the worst! (Even if they still upload a small
image, it might be fine, the important thing is to discourage it)
* Please enforce the user to pick a better name than the default one.
We have more than enough D23435646 and IMG345456456 and QZ23545657
image names already.
* Please DON'T encourage sunsets. :( :( :( :( :( Maybe encourage
pictures of their local area? at least they can ID that and we can
figure out if we can use it or not.
* Please ONLY allow this option: "I am the creator of this image, and
hold its copyright." The other option will be such a pain and near
impossible to verify, and trust me, there will be enough problems with
their own work.
* "The public domain (only recommended for images which are in the
public domain already)." Why??? I would remove this disclaimer and
list this first, from most-free to least-free (GFDL only). [OK not
least free but biggest hassle.] Just say "You grant anyone the right
to use this work for any purpose including commercial use, without any
conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." That's scary
(and true) enough.
* CC-BY-SA: "...and to be released in turn under a free license" -
change to "any derivatives of this work to be in turn released under
this license" (to my knowledge you can't just choose something else!)
* Please emphasise that licensing decisions cannot be undone in the
future and if unsure, they should not contribute

Instead of just having a big blank space, let's be smarter than
MediaWiki ;) and have separate fields for the required info.
"Description (Who or what is shown? Where is it located? Why is it
interesting or important?)"
Source should be self-made as I stated above
"Date (when was the image taken?)"
Author and Permission, no probs - but please don't put the {{license}}
in the permission field, put it separately below and in the Permission
field put a text statement like "X chose to release this image under
the Y license as part of the Z image donation drive."

I think we should limit uploads to something like 2 per person per
day. If they're uploading dozens of images they should probably get an
account (in fact, make that the alternative: do you have heaps of
great images to contribute? Sign up to WM commons and upload as many
as you want!) and also to discourage WM users from "anonymous"
uploading (WM users are probably a significant majority of donors
anyway, come fundraising time).

* How are we going to communicate to them where if anywhere their
image will be available? The email... eh. If we have to email them to
find something out it's already too much hassle, dump it. (IMO)
* Also categories... suggest five (somehow) based on their description
text & CommonSense and get them to pick the most relevant, or just
leave it up to the reviewers?

BTW this doesn't mean I support this idea yet, I just like critiquing
Magnus' UIs ;P

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

Re: Image donations?

Magnus Manske
Brianna Laugher wrote:
> * Please forbid any image below say 800px on one side, and ALL mobile
> phone pictures. They are the worst! (Even if they still upload a small
> image, it might be fine, the important thing is to discourage it)
>  
This is now forbidden by text, and by script ;-)
> * Please enforce the user to pick a better name than the default one.
> We have more than enough D23435646 and IMG345456456 and QZ23545657
> image names already.
>  
Enforcing this is difficult, unless "IMG*" and "Q*" are the only
patterns to watch out for, which I'm sure they aren't.
> * Please DON'T encourage sunsets. :( :( :( :( :( Maybe encourage
> pictures of their local area? at least they can ID that and we can
> figure out if we can use it or not.
>  
Don't talk bad about sunsets. One of my sunsets made it to image oif the
day on commons, after all. They're pretty. Don't tread on them! ;-)
> * Please ONLY allow this option: "I am the creator of this image, and
> hold its copyright." The other option will be such a pain and near
> impossible to verify, and trust me, there will be enough problems with
> their own work.
>  
Disagree. I have uploaded one or two pictures on commons that my mom
took. If we force people to lie on the very first item of the form, how
long do you think their discipline will be holding up?
> * "The public domain (only recommended for images which are in the
> public domain already)." Why??? I would remove this disclaimer and
> list this first, from most-free to least-free (GFDL only). [OK not
> least free but biggest hassle.] Just say "You grant anyone the right
> to use this work for any purpose including commercial use, without any
> conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." That's scary
> (and true) enough.
>  
Disagree. While copyright in its current from is in place, public domain
is not a good license (yes, not a license at all, technically) for our
purposes. Only GFDL/CC-BY guarantees freedom by restricting it,
perversely. IMHO public domain should be chosen only for old images and
USGov-type ones. Pictures that a user took should get a free license
instead, or at least we should encourage that.
GFDL can't be at the end of the list anyway, because otherwise dual
licensing wouldn't make sense ;-)
> * CC-BY-SA: "...and to be released in turn under a free license" -
> change to "any derivatives of this work to be in turn released under
> this license" (to my knowledge you can't just choose something else!)
>  
Done.
> * Please emphasise that licensing decisions cannot be undone in the
> future and if unsure, they should not contribute
>  
Done.

> Instead of just having a big blank space, let's be smarter than
> MediaWiki ;) and have separate fields for the required info.
> "Description (Who or what is shown? Where is it located? Why is it
> interesting or important?)"
> Source should be self-made as I stated above
> "Date (when was the image taken?)"
> Author and Permission, no probs - but please don't put the {{license}}
> in the permission field, put it separately below and in the Permission
> field put a text statement like "X chose to release this image under
> the Y license as part of the Z image donation drive."
>  
Mostly done. If we ever get serious about this, maybe I should
transclude the whole text from a wiki page or something.
> I think we should limit uploads to something like 2 per person per
> day. If they're uploading dozens of images they should probably get an
> account (in fact, make that the alternative: do you have heaps of
> great images to contribute? Sign up to WM commons and upload as many
> as you want!) and also to discourage WM users from "anonymous"
> uploading (WM users are probably a significant majority of donors
> anyway, come fundraising time).
>  
I've added a brief notice to that end.
> * How are we going to communicate to them where if anywhere their
> image will be available? The email... eh. If we have to email them to
> find something out it's already too much hassle, dump it. (IMO)
>  
I just put it in because it was on that weird drawing ;-)
Well, it is optional, and email is better than no email IMHO.
> * Also categories... suggest five (somehow) based on their description
> text & CommonSense and get them to pick the most relevant, or just
> leave it up to the reviewers?
>  
AFAIK CommonSense can only "sense" categories for existing MediaWiki
pages. I could probably write some two-step mechanism, but that feels
weird somehow. I'll leave it as it is for the time being.
> BTW this doesn't mean I support this idea yet, I just like critiquing
> Magnus' UIs ;P
>  
Please try it again! I've added new confusing colors especially for you :-)

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

Re: Image donations?

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
Magnus,

thanks for hacking this.

First, I think the most important difference between your
implementation and my concept is that you want to upload images
directly to Commons. I think images uploaded through a simplified
process that is advertised e.g. as part of the next fundraiser should
go into a pre-approval queue, where their descriptions can be edited,
and bad material can be filtered. This would also allow us to enable
the usage of this system by anonymous users, as any vandalism, porn
etc. wouldn't become immediately visible.

Please have a closer look at FlickrLickr, if you haven't already. We
have reviewed over 90,000 photos and uploaded over 5,500. The process
looks like this:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flickrlickr.png

You have 50 of these boxes per page, and for each one, you edit the
metadata and select the image if you want it to be uploaded. This
allows us to exercise quality control. I can send you the FlickrLickr
source code (Perl) and database structure if you want to play with it.
I think it might make a reasonable backend for an image donations
process. We might want to generalize it to deal with other media. The
script could also be expanded to notify the uploader whether their
files have been accepted (only a couple of lines of Perl really).

One idea that is part of the concept I posted is to enable uploading
media archives (ZIP files etc.). This would be useful for individuals
and institutions which want to share a set of images. Your script
would have to uncompress the archive, and ask the user to describe
each file that is in it.

Regarding the specific implementation at the moment, I may be alone in
this, but I think we should greatly simplify the licensing part. What
I would prefer is something like:

[ ]  You agree to donate your picture to the general public under the
terms of the
     GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 or higher and the Creative Commons
     Attribution/Share-Alike license 2.5 or higher. This means that
anyone can use
     it for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as modified
copies are
     made available under similar terms (copyleft).

Perhaps below this there could be a link "Other licensing options",
which would expand a selection of radiobuttons like the one you have
now. But I'd prefer something very simple for the casual user.

I would also suggest hacking a separate contact form for people who do
not want to use this process. This would have some questions like:
- Describe the media you want to donate
- Choose the licensing conditions (here a more advanced form would be available)
- Tell us where we can reach you.
- Other comments.

It could send a nicely formatted e-mail into an OTRS queue created
specifically for this purpose.

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

Re: Image donations?

Erik Moeller-3
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 6/20/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:
> * Please enforce the user to pick a better name than the default one.
> We have more than enough D23435646 and IMG345456456 and QZ23545657
> image names already.

If we use a FlickrLickr-like process, the renaming can be done as part
of the review process. FlickrLickr already does a check on the
filenames from Flickr, and if they match a simple regular expression
like this, it forces the reviewer to rename the file.

> * Please ONLY allow this option: "I am the creator of this image, and
> hold its copyright." The other option will be such a pain and near
> impossible to verify, and trust me, there will be enough problems with
> their own work.

I tend to disagree here, but an e-mail address should be required if
this option is selected.

> I think we should limit uploads to something like 2 per person per
> day.

This depends really on whether images go directly to Commons, or
through a review process. If they go through a review process first,
someone uploading hundreds of images wouldn't be a problem. We would
just have to explain to users that becoming part of the community is
the best way to contribute.

> * Also categories... suggest five (somehow) based on their description
> text & CommonSense and get them to pick the most relevant, or just
> leave it up to the reviewers?

The point shouldn't be to clone the upload UI we have, but to provide
a simplified process for people who don't know how to use Commons,
something which we can advertise widely and broadly. Again, with a
review process, the categories can be handled by the reviewers.

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

Re: Image donations?

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Erik Moeller-3
Erik Moeller schrieb:
> Please have a closer look at FlickrLickr, if you haven't already. We
> have reviewed over 90,000 photos and uploaded over 5,500. The process
> looks like this:
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Flickrlickr.png
>  
Using FlickrLickr to filter donated images sounds like a great idea. I
could upload them to the FlickrLickr database if there's an interface.

After the safe-upload experience, I wouldn't want to store the image on
the toolserver ;-)
> The
> script could also be expanded to notify the uploader whether their
> files have been accepted (only a couple of lines of Perl really).
>  
I haven't used Perl for some time now, and only very basic stuff back then.
> One idea that is part of the concept I posted is to enable uploading
> media archives (ZIP files etc.). This would be useful for individuals
> and institutions which want to share a set of images. Your script
> would have to uncompress the archive, and ask the user to describe
> each file that is in it.
>  
Two problems with this:
* Each image in a zip file would basically get the same description.
Otherwise, you'll have to include a text file with the descriptions,
which is probably more hassle than uploading them one by one.
* Zip files can be manipulated to grow into extreme amounts of nonsense
data. Even a small zip fil could potentially result in hundreds of GB of
uncompressed data. A potential attack vector.

> Regarding the specific implementation at the moment, I may be alone in
> this, but I think we should greatly simplify the licensing part. What
> I would prefer is something like:
>
> [ ]  You agree to donate your picture to the general public under the
> terms of the
>      GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 or higher and the Creative Commons
>      Attribution/Share-Alike license 2.5 or higher. This means that
> anyone can use
>      it for any purpose, including commercial use, as long as modified
> copies are
>      made available under similar terms (copyleft).
>
>  
I have altered the text to show that option more prominently. I'd prefer
to give the uploader some choice, though. Choice makes people think,
whil a single checkbox just gets, well, checked ;-)

> I would also suggest hacking a separate contact form for people who do
> not want to use this process. This would have some questions like:
> - Describe the media you want to donate
> - Choose the licensing conditions (here a more advanced form would be available)
> - Tell us where we can reach you.
> - Other comments.
>
> It could send a nicely formatted e-mail into an OTRS queue created
> specifically for this purpose.
>  
Here's a thought: Let people mail their images, descriptions, and
license to a central e-mail directly. Volunteers could then upload them
after checking.

And, we'd automatically get the senders e-mail address ;-)

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: Image donations?

Erik Moeller-3
On 6/21/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Using FlickrLickr to filter donated images sounds like a great idea. I
> could upload them to the FlickrLickr database if there's an interface.

I could hack an authenticated HTTP POST form that would allow you to
add metadata to the DB. Would that be good enough?

> After the safe-upload experience, I wouldn't want to store the image on
> the toolserver ;-)

Sorry, I didn't follow this - what is the problem with storing images
on the toolserver? I'm not sure my server could handle all the
incoming image donations, and I've been thinking about migrating
FlickrLickr to the toolserver anyway.

> Two problems with this:
> * Each image in a zip file would basically get the same description.
> Otherwise, you'll have to include a text file with the descriptions,
> which is probably more hassle than uploading them one by one.

See
http://scireview.de/wiki/donations2.jpg - for each file in the ZIP,
the user would have to enter metadata after the upload.

> * Zip files can be manipulated to grow into extreme amounts of nonsense
> data. Even a small zip fil could potentially result in hundreds of GB of
> uncompressed data. A potential attack vector.

Listing archive contents should be a trivial operation. With PHP, you
could use the Zip module, which has a zip_entry_filesize function (not
sure if the toolserver has that installed). Or you could parse the
output of the "unzip -l" command. If a file is much larger
uncompressed than compressed, that's probably an indication of
something foul.

> I have altered the text to show that option more prominently. I'd prefer
> to give the uploader some choice, though. Choice makes people think,
> whil a single checkbox just gets, well, checked ;-)

I don't think most users of the form would have enough of a basis of
knowledge about copyright and licensing to make an informed decision.
If you want to make people think, prominently linking to a licensing
tutorial might work better.

Please remove the GFDL from the list of licenses. We really should
_never_ have images which are only under the GFDL. The GFDL is
completely unsuitable for such materials due to the requirement to
reprint the full license with every use. There is no dispute about
this as far as I know -- GFDL/CC-BY-SA dual licensing is the preferred
option.

> Here's a thought: Let people mail their images, descriptions, and
> license to a central e-mail directly. Volunteers could then upload them
> after checking.

Free form e-mail is difficult to process because every mail looks
different. It also makes it more difficult to collaborate using
interfaces like FlickrLickr.

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

Re: Image donations?

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
Erik Moeller wrote:
> On 6/21/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
<snip>
>> Here's a thought: Let people mail their images, descriptions, and
>> license to a central e-mail directly. Volunteers could then upload them
>> after checking.
>
> Free form e-mail is difficult to process because every mail looks
> different. It also makes it more difficult to collaborate using
> interfaces like FlickrLickr.
>

Agreed. MUAs like Apple Mail have this horrible habit of "embedding"
attachments into the message so that the email ends up being (2n+1) MIME
parts for each attachment:

* Initial text
* Attachment
* Next bit of text
* Attachment
* Next bit of text

etc. These sort of messages are *horrible* to process using something
like OTRS. At least with a web interface, we get to decide what format
things are arriving in...

--
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP


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

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment