The tragedy of Commons

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
75 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The notion that Commonists are second class contributors is plain wrong. It has not been said, certainly not by me. Commons as a project provides a service to all projects in a similar way that Wikidata does. When you compare those two to the "other" projects, the others are insular what they do from a community point of view is largely irrelevant in the wider community.
 
It is exactly the fact that Commons and Wikidata are sharing their resources that gives them the potential to be a more social project, more inclusive. It already has the shared relevance, when its community "gets it" that its actions have a wider, more global effect, it may become more sociable and thereby more effective.
Thanks.
     GerardM


On 21 June 2014 06:34, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as it is there to serve other projects.

It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word -- it is an error and an injustice.
  -- Rama



On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising. The
> intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone blocked
> when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
> I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression that
> there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a power
> play.



I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Rama Neko
On 21 June 2014 05:34, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.



This further supports the proposal that an actual service project is needed.


- d.

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Ilario Valdelli
This is partially true.

Commons has its own life and its own indipendence *but* it serves also
other projects.

And this is happened as soon the other projects decided to centralize
all medias in Commons.

What the communiy of Commons decides has an impact in other projects and
the community of Commons cannot forget it.

In the other hand the community of Commons can ask to have a clear and
evident indipendence as soon the same community asks to other projects
to reingrate their own medias in their own projects.

Regards

On 21.06.2014 08:46, David Gerard wrote:

> On 21 June 2014 05:34, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
>> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
>> it is there to serve other projects.
>
>
> This further supports the proposal that an actual service project is needed.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


--
Ilario Valdelli
Wikimedia CH
Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens
Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre
Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera
Switzerland - 8008 Zürich
Tel: +41764821371
http://www.wikimedia.ch


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

geni
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2



On 21 June 2014 07:46, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

This further supports the proposal that an actual service project is needed.



In the case of the Israeli stuff not really. They've got a specific problem that doesn't really need a full blown service project to address. Specifically we appear to suffer from a lack of Israeli editors able to write to the Israeli government asking what the Israeli government's position is on overseas copyrights on government works is. On paper Wikimedia Israel would be ideally suited for the task.

--
geni

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Yann Forget-3
In reply to this post by Rama Neko
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:

> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Rama Neko
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.

When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.

In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gnangarra
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_undeletion

as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.

So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
  • notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
  • when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page giving the result and advising of options of  delreview or transfer locally.


Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments





On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.

When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.

In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Rama Neko
You are reverting the burden of responsibility. If files are improperly uploaded on Commons, the issue is not Commons removing them, it is the uploading that causes the problem. Which in itself would not be a big deal -- you can politely ask a Commons admin to help you upload the file on your local Wikimedia project, and be done with it.

The problem becomes serious only because some people around here insist on shifting blame, starting political controversies out of these punctual issues, and have this ludicrous notion that they somehow can bring people in line by shouting and issuing vague and empty threats. Given the degree on autonomy that project have, and given the voluntary nature of our activities, this autoritarian approach will always yield more resistance and therefore cannot work. Therefore, be it only out of practical sense, I urge the concerned people to change their approach.
-- Rama



On 22 June 2014 09:45, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_undeletion

as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.

So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
  • notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
  • when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page giving the result and advising of options of  delreview or transfer locally.


Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments





On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.

When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.

In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Rama Neko
PS: my last rely to GerardM, not to Gnangarra.


On 22 June 2014 09:52, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
You are reverting the burden of responsibility. If files are improperly uploaded on Commons, the issue is not Commons removing them, it is the uploading that causes the problem. Which in itself would not be a big deal -- you can politely ask a Commons admin to help you upload the file on your local Wikimedia project, and be done with it.

The problem becomes serious only because some people around here insist on shifting blame, starting political controversies out of these punctual issues, and have this ludicrous notion that they somehow can bring people in line by shouting and issuing vague and empty threats. Given the degree on autonomy that project have, and given the voluntary nature of our activities, this autoritarian approach will always yield more resistance and therefore cannot work. Therefore, be it only out of practical sense, I urge the concerned people to change their approach.
-- Rama



On 22 June 2014 09:45, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_undeletion

as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.

So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
  • notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
  • when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page giving the result and advising of options of  delreview or transfer locally.


Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments





On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.

When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.

In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Fæ
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 22 June 2014 07:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still
> refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it
> from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people
> to grant a local right to use that image.

My understanding is that a "wikidatafication" of Commons is highly
unlikely to happen in 2014, and no plan current gives a date for when
this would be implemented.

Happy to be corrected, preferably by linking to a committed schedule.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
Hoi,
The current thinking is that while Commons will be "Wikidatified", it will have its own database. Consequently even the STATEMENTS about any discussion (ie the results) will be local to Commons. The discussions will be in "Flow" or whatever. So no worries mate.

When a file is used, explicitly all the projects have a vested interest in a file. When a project has room for its own policies re media files, it makes sense to build on top of what has been decided on a global level.. IE there is a reason why it is no longer globally available and the local project decides on "fair use". This would be local information that is in addition to the information that is globally available.

Finally, the authorisation of usage is not low hanging fruit. The first order of business is to make sure that the meta data about media files becomes available in all our languages. This will enable the finding of images easier. 
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 22 June 2014 09:45, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
The image isnt directly lost to the other projects Commons has a policy of allowing temporary restoration for transfer to another project under fair use provisions,

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests#Temporary_undeletion

as Gerard kind of identifies the issue is in the communication when deletions occurs to project whos contributors may not be active on Commons and are therefore unable to contribute to the deletion discussion process.

So the question then is how can we improve this communitcation between projects, my thoughts are;
  • notification on article talk pages of articles where the media is in use, with a link to the discussion so they can participate
  • when a discussion is closed then a notification to the talk page giving the result and advising of options of  delreview or transfer locally.


Personally I wouldnt like to see the communication of Commons activities put in the hands of a third project(WikiData) thats only going to make more points of arguments





On 22 June 2014 14:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
Much of the "ordering around" is the consequence of LOSING the images when Commons decides to no longer make media files available. Even when a project allows for things like "fair use", the images are lost to them when Commons decides to remove access.

When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people to grant a local right to use that image.

In this way Commons does what it thinks best and the local projects gained the ability to do whatever fits their policies.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 22 June 2014 08:38, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2014 22:28, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Blocking because people do not agree with you is very much antagonising.
>> > The
>> > intention is that Commons serves other projects so why is someone
>> > blocked
>> > when they make sure people take notice of what is happening at Commons?
>> > I fins it is rather offensive all these !@#$%%. It gives the impression
>> > that
>> > there is no conversation possible and that it has degenerated into a
>> > power
>> > play.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Fæ
Hoi,
The planning and development for the "Wikidatification" for media files is already under way. 
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 22 June 2014 10:23, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 22 June 2014 07:59, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> When the information is Wikidatified, the image in a project will still
> refer to that Wiki project and it WILL state that Commons has removed it
> from the media files that are generally available. It is then for the people
> to grant a local right to use that image.

My understanding is that a "wikidatafication" of Commons is highly
unlikely to happen in 2014, and no plan current gives a date for when
this would be implemented.

Happy to be corrected, preferably by linking to a committed schedule.

Fae
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

WereSpielChequers-2
In reply to this post by Yann Forget-3
Hoi Gerard,

Interesting to hear that such planning and development "Wikidatification" for media files is already underway. Would you mind giving us a link to where that planning is taking place? Apologies if such a link has previously been posted to this list.



Regards

Jonathan



Message: 3
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2014 11:10:12 +0200
From: Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] The tragedy of Commons
Message-ID:
        <[hidden email]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hoi,
The planning and development for the "Wikidatification" for media files is
already under way.
Thanks,
      GerardM





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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Neel Gupta
In reply to this post by Rama Neko
Back to topic:

The purpose of commons is to be an Exhibition for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an Encyclopedia.
The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Fæ
On 24 June 2014 15:24, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
...
> because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every
> Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves
> all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to
> copyright incompatibility.

Citation needed for "half of them".

As a case study example of how conscientious volunteers are on
Commons, please take a look at the deletion request below. This
involved a large number of US public domain posters from the Library
of Congress, some of which were assessed as having potential copyright
claims in Germany, despite being 100 years old. These were carefully
reviewed, death dates of artists checked where possible, and the files
to be deleted moved (by a bot) to the English Wikipedia where the U.S.
public domain status is sufficient for them stay available for use on
Wikipedia. Note that some of these will be undeleted on Commons in a
few years, once the 70 years after the artists death date is due.
* DR: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_on_User:Martin_H./World_War_I_posters_in_the_Library_of_Congress_for_jpg_file_matches_to_%22Rehse-Archiv%22
* Files moved to Wikipedia and so still available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_I_posters_in_the_Library_of_Congress

This case study example was not a result of lobbying off-wiki, this
was Commons contributors doing their best to keep images available for
reuse. Moving files off Commons to a project where they can stay
available under weaker copyright policies is one of our best
practices.

Fae
--
[hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Neel Gupta
Hoi,
HELL NO

Commons is not an exhibition.. that implies that things can be found by people looking for "i. Anyway according to the main page "a database of 21,617,796 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute".
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 24 June 2014 16:24, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Back to topic:

The purpose of commons is to be an Exhibition for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an Encyclopedia.
The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Magnus Manske-2
From https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Project_scope

"Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation,..."

1. "Media file repository" (primary) comes before "projects of the Wikimedia Foundation" (secondary)
2. It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.

That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.

Magnus


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
HELL NO

Commons is not an exhibition.. that implies that things can be found by people looking for "i. Anyway according to the main page "a database of 21,617,796 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute".
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 24 June 2014 16:24, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Back to topic:

The purpose of commons is to be an Exhibition for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an Encyclopedia.
The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
undefined

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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Gnangarra
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
There is no denying that Commons does provide a significant service to other WMF projects, regardless of the definition and perception of what Commons is meant to be

What we keep coming back to are
  1.  That when a file is deleted on Commons if there is an option for it to be transferred to another project then we should be doing it, but this isnt happening automatically and very rarely manually.
    1. the reason being is Commons admins dont know they can,
    2. think that its not their responsibility to find out if there are alternative options
    3. arent language proficient to upload or seek help on other projects to ensure its a valid action
  2. When Commons does discuss the status of a file people who are using the file aren't necessarily being adequately made aware of the discussions
    1. there is no  notification that causes watchlist activity on other projects when listing a file
    2. the first time they find out about the discussion is either a dead link in an article, or a bot edit removing the file link. This just creates a hostile environment before meaningful discussion starts which further worsened by being responded to with "take it to delreview if you dont like it"
  3. If a contributor from another WMF project does comment they feel as if they are being dismissed as an SPA, and not being heard because they arent active participants at Commons.
    1. unfortunately they also experience being bitten,
    2. discussion being tagged as not vote or some other "if you came from outside commons go away we'll deal with it"

What we need to be looking at is fixing this communication problem, both before a decision is reached to encourage input and after its occurred to ensure best possible outcomes for all parties. We have been here before and will continue to keep coming back to this until we take steps to improve communication which results in meaningful success when and where possible

One of the first things on Commons we could do is assume the deletion reason is valid ie URAA, fairuse etcso lets  bypass Delreview and have a page for deleted file transfers requests. Where a simple request could be placed with just the file:name, destination, licensing on project and a tag to indicate it has been deleted on Commons and transferred on request with relevant links.

Additionally when bots remove the links to a deleted file they could place a boiler notice on the article talk page directing them to the discussion and that page so they can understand what has occurred and what they do next.

or we can........ suggestions, thoughts, speak up lets fix this and start discussing important things like which pub to meet at in London


On 24 June 2014 23:27, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hoi,
HELL NO

Commons is not an exhibition.. that implies that things can be found by people looking for "i. Anyway according to the main page "a database of 21,617,796 freely usable media files to which anyone can contribute".
Thanks,
      GerardM


On 24 June 2014 16:24, Neel Gupta <[hidden email]> wrote:
Back to topic:

The purpose of commons is to be an Exhibition for public domain digital media, & the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an Encyclopedia.
The problem arises when commons can't keep the donated digital media, because US laws prohibit it. This problem is enlarged because every Wikipedia regional site uses commons as a digital media library, and moves all the PD works to commons, which then deletes half of them due to copyright incompatibility.


On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Rama Neko <[hidden email]> wrote:
It makes as much sense to say that Commons is a repository for other Wikimedia projects, than to say that Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic context to the media of Wikimedia Commons.

Where the real asymetry lies is in the feeling of superiority of certain users of others projects who see Commons as a "service project", and from there construct the notion that jackbooting in and ordering people around is remotely legitimate (and, to be practical, has a chance to work).
There is a small number of users, always the same, who regularly attempt to push an agenda of lax copyright standards for Commons; when this fails they try to impose their proposed policies by drumming up support from people with vested interests from other projects, and notorious authoritarians. Has anybody ever seen an influx of Commonists flocking to wp.he to "treat it as a problem"?

That is where the real problem is. The issue is not hosting these media, they can be hosted locally on the projects that use them as "Free-but-not-on-Commons", or as "Fair use". The issue is beating Commons into submission, as an aim in itself. Well, pardon us if we object.

  -- Rama




On 21 June 2014 19:19, Yann Forget <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Rama,

Sorry, but you have it all wrong.

1. Wikimedia is a repository for other Wikimedia projects. It is its
primary mission.

2. But this does not make Commons contributors second-class. On the
opposite, importing and managing files for other projects make them
first-class IMHO. ;oD

Yann


2014-06-21 10:04 GMT+05:30 Rama Neko <[hidden email]>:
> Commons is not there to serve other projects. Commons is a project of its
> own standing, and the other projects are there to serve it just as much as
> it is there to serve other projects.
>
> It is really dispiriting to see how certain people see Commonists as some
> sort of second-class contributors. That is wrong in every sense of the word
> -- it is an error and an injustice.
>   -- Rama
>
>
>
> On 20 June 2014 23:45, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I've noted before: If Commons doesn't want to be regarded as a problem
>> by other projects, it really needs to start behaving less like one.
>>
>>
>> - d.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Commons-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l



_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l




--
GN.
Vice President Wikimedia Australia
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com


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

Re: The tragedy of Commons

Chris McKenna
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske-2
On Tue, 24 Jun 2014, Magnus Manske wrote:

> 2. It means other projects can use files form Commons. Nowhere it states
> that Commons has to take whatever Wikipedias feel like storing there.
>
> That said, it does feel like some people are using the very fine toothbrush
> to find and delete images that are not 100% obviously allowed.

The problem is that people from other projects are uploading files in
a good faith understanding that Commons will look after them, as they work
on the principle that unless something is provably unfree then it is
acceptable to host.

Unfortunately, Commons actually operates on the principle that if there a
possibility that someone somewhere may in future claim that a file is
unfree, with or without proof, and with or without merit to the claim,
then it cannot be held unless we have proof (of a higher standard than
required by professional copyright lawyers) that the file is completely
free in the US and the source country, now and at all conceivable future
times, then it must be deleted. There is also a great reluctance to engage
with anyone who has a lesser understanding of copyright than the
self-educated and self-appointed experts on Commons, and with anyone who
has a lesser grasp of English than they do. There is an equal reluctance
to let anyone using the images know that there are questions about a file.

Until this attitude changes, Commons is not and cannot be a reliable host
of media for other projects, and usage as such must be deprecated and an
alternative, reliable service project initiated.

----
Chris McKenna

[hidden email]
www.sucs.org/~cmckenna


The essential things in life are seen not with the eyes,
but with the heart

Antoine de Saint Exupery


_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
1234