[Wikimedia-l] Commons

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

[Wikimedia-l] Commons

Benjamin Ikuta


Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.

Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?

~Benjamin


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Gnangarra
The scope of Commons is actually much less, than en.wikipedia   uploading
to Commons is not a great introduction to the movement copyright and more
complex than just fixing a spelling error or adding a statement.

We do need to more to encourage uploading of media files, WLE, WLM do work
towards that more on the ground engagement within communities, and seeking
support from within the photography community where mine, mine, mine, dont
ask for free stuff is big issue because way to many commercial operators
want everything for free, we forget that photography is an expensive hobby
you cant just borrow gear from a library or read online like you can with
sourcing written content.

Personally I think WLE, WLM need bigger budgets all round with sponsors
from retail outlets offering photography prizes and WMF & Affiliates
offering the primary prize that lets people buy gear like cameras and lenses

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 11:05, Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Pine W
In reply to this post by Benjamin Ikuta
Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that
restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media
files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.

I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't
remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for
lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed
solution was to set up another website for media files that would
allow media with NC restrictions.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Gnangarra
the NC discussion from memory fell in that they impacted the ability to
include them in Wikipedia pages that are then rebroadcast by people like
Google and answers.com  because it was a more restrictive license.

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 12:44, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that
> restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media
> files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.
>
> I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't
> remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for
> lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed
> solution was to set up another website for media files that would
> allow media with NC restrictions.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
This was discussed a number of times[sic.] onwiki and there was no consensus at all to allow NC on commons.

Citing from Commons:Village pump/Copyright: "One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.ump/Copyright"

I agree with Gnangarra .

Best,
Steinsplitter

________________________________
Von: Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> im Auftrag von Gnangarra <[hidden email]>
Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2020 06:49
An: Wikimedia Mailing List <[hidden email]>
Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

the NC discussion from memory fell in that they impacted the ability to
include them in Wikipedia pages that are then rebroadcast by people like
Google and answers.com  because it was a more restrictive license.

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 12:44, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Personally, I wish that Commons permitted images with licenses that
> restricted the images to noncommercial use only. There are some media
> files that I would have uploaded to Commons if this was the case.
>
> I have seen at least previous discussion about this but I can't
> remember what happened to it. My guess is that the proposal died for
> lack of consensus or lack of energy. I remember that one proposed
> solution was to set up another website for media files that would
> allow media with NC restrictions.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 3:05 AM Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Roland Unger
In reply to this post by Benjamin Ikuta
There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.

-
 Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to
increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.

see: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
-
 Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the question why to
publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?

-
 There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some Wikipedians are
living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
sisters.
- For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).

I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems are known already now.

I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?

Roland




>>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>


Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.

Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?

~Benjamin


_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Pine W
If memory serves me correctly, as Steinsplitter said, there has been
pushback on Commons regarding allowing NC-licensed images on Commons,
but I can't recall if there was a consensus regarding having a site
that is an alternative to Commons and allow images with NC licenses.
I'm not sure how much discussion there was regarding setting up a new
sister project for this purpose. I can imagine that one argument
against it would be that it could cause confusion, but I think that
with a good UI design that could be fixed. However, I'm not sure that
the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain
another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we
have.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Gnangarra
I think you've hit the nail on the head Pine with

> However, I'm not sure that
> the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain
> another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we
> have.


We really need to address the lack of cross project support and community
by further integration of projects rather than create more stand alone
projects.

>
>

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 14:42, Pine W <[hidden email]> wrote:

> If memory serves me correctly, as Steinsplitter said, there has been
> pushback on Commons regarding allowing NC-licensed images on Commons,
> but I can't recall if there was a consensus regarding having a site
> that is an alternative to Commons and allow images with NC licenses.
> I'm not sure how much discussion there was regarding setting up a new
> sister project for this purpose. I can imagine that one argument
> against it would be that it could cause confusion, but I think that
> with a good UI design that could be fixed. However, I'm not sure that
> the community has enough human resources to monitor and sustain
> another project. We already have problems with maintaining what we
> have.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--
GN.

*Power of Diverse Collaboration*
*Sharing knowledge brings people together*
Wikimania Bangkok 2021
August
hosted by ESEAP

Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Fæ
In reply to this post by Roland Unger
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
<[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to Commons.
>
> -
>  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We had to
> increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for the movement.
>
> see: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> -
>  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is the question why to
> publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
>
> -
>  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some Wikipedians are
> living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> sisters.
> - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
>
> I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most problems are known already now.
>
> I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
>
> Roland
>
>
>
>
> >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin

A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
actually attract a few high quality photographers.

A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
as part of increasing their own internet footprint.

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

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Tito Dutta
This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
alternative version of Commons).
2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
star) is good for motivation as well.

Thanks
User:Titodutta



On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> Commons.
> >
> > -
> >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> had to
> > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users for
> the movement.
> >
> > see:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > -
> >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> the question why to
> > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or Pinterest?
> >
> > -
> >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians. Some
> Wikipedians are
> > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > sisters.
> > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly user
> interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> >
> > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> problems are known already now.
> >
> > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> >
> > Roland
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> >
> >
> > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> people don't contribute more broadly?
> >
> > ~Benjamin
>
> A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> actually attract a few high quality photographers.
>
> A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
>
> Fae
> --
> [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Yaroslav Blanter
Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:

https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866

However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either

Best
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
> Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> alternative version of Commons).
> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
> problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > Commons.
> > >
> > > -
> > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > had to
> > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> for
> > the movement.
> > >
> > > see:
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > -
> > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > the question why to
> > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> Pinterest?
> > >
> > > -
> > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> Some
> > Wikipedians are
> > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > sisters.
> > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> user
> > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> > >
> > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > problems are known already now.
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > >
> > > Roland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> > people don't contribute more broadly?
> > >
> > > ~Benjamin
> >
> > A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> > folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> > links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> > follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> > actually attract a few high quality photographers.
> >
> > A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> > could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> > and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> > same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> > as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.

We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader. 

However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess.
A.




   Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> ha scritto:  
 
 Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:

https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866

However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either

Best
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
> Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> alternative version of Commons).
> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
> problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > Commons.
> > >
> > > -
> > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > had to
> > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> for
> > the movement.
> > >
> > > see:
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > -
> > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > the question why to
> > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> Pinterest?
> > >
> > > -
> > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> Some
> > Wikipedians are
> > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > sisters.
> > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> user
> > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> > >
> > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > problems are known already now.
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > >
> > > Roland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> > people don't contribute more broadly?
> > >
> > > ~Benjamin
> >
> > A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> > folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> > links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> > follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> > actually attract a few high quality photographers.
> >
> > A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> > could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> > and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> > same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> > as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>  
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia
that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are
pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not
compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because
the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We
are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to
Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable.

It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with
wikidata and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that
English Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably
in the same database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed
material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the
exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is
part of English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material
to use in whatever project, the license limits what you can use, what you
find. For material that we want to include that has an incompatible
license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects and we may choose if
and how we expose it to the world.

Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects,
the other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original
that is reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is
not available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material.

The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and
bring options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise
stuff that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content
linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world
beyond the two U-s.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <
[hidden email]> wrote:

>  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way
> that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if
> you want it.
>
> We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the
> other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost
> never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people
> that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't
> need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on
> line instead of simply asking the uploader.
>
> However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority
> of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only
> fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> be the one to clean the mess.
> A.
>
>
>
>
>    Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> earlier this year:
>
>
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
>
> However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
> way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> blocked on other projects, does not help either
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> > contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> > covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> > 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia
> Commons
> > when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> > non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the
> scope
> > of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> > However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated
> there.
> > Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> > alternative version of Commons).
> > 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> > Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> > Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> > gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> > spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> > working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this
> "popularity"
> > problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> > initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> > 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue
> of
> > seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> > platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> > longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> > steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> > 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On
> Facebook,
> > Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This
> is a
> > major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> > instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> > am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> > Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> > email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> > star) is good for motivation as well.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > > Commons.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > > had to
> > > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts
> an
> > > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> > for
> > > the movement.
> > > >
> > > > see:
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > > -
> > > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > > the question why to
> > > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> > Pinterest?
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> > Some
> > > Wikipedians are
> > > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > > sisters.
> > > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> > user
> > > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or
> in
> > > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support,
> etc.).
> > > >
> > > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > > problems are known already now.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > > >
> > > > Roland
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> > > people don't contribute more broadly?
> > > >
> > > > ~Benjamin
> > >
> > > A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> > > folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> > > links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> > > follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> > > actually attract a few high quality photographers.
> > >
> > > A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> > > could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> > > and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> > > same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> > > as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
 I have no doubt that on the long-term solutions will be found. Even if structural data were IMHO presented and used poorly, the catalyzing effect of them and Wikidata will be there. I am also in full support for the creation of a parallel Commons for NC files as well, which will also speed up many processes. I am not interested in some ideological stance about the matter, if we can keep NC files locally, we can also on a general platforms, or we don't keep them at all.

The point is that such solutions will never really originate from a big part of the community of Commons (including part of OTRS), they simply cannot stem from a community structured the way some users actively shaped it over the years, encouraging a self-referential "righteous" vision. Think about what occurred with Wikidata, I saw users being trolled for discussing about its future role the beginning, but they were mostly right, I don't see the Commons users who invented paranoid scenarios to justify their behavior even thinking about that now.

I don't have time to protect the social roles of users who behave in such a poor way. If I can solve things just going around them, I do so. It is a failure, but it's not the fault of many among us. After I have to fix problems from actions that could have simply being avoided with just a tiny amount of good sense, I don't have time to discuss that there might be  a better way of doing thing to users who will just ignore that and go to the first occasion to reproduce the same behavior again, because they are even rewarded for that. It takes me hours and I don't have any energy left, certainly not even to rename a file, create a category or verify a license. I don't have even energy to present it nicely to a third part who is witnessing that. I don't care how certain users look, because they are the first ones who don't care about the consequence of their actions.
Over the years, I am more convinced that the best solution is to let them go. It does not matter if the backlog obviously increases. When we will be free to set up more functional solutions, the backlog can be reduced quite easily. I have therefore stopped many years ago to perform any actions outside my projects and I am happy that way. I am sure I am not the only one. I am slways happy to create tool outside of such bubble, of course, but not a lot inside it.

   Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 20:14:49 CEST, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> ha scritto:  
 
 Hoi,Just consider this, there are still many pictures in the English Wikipedia that could be in Commons because of its license and regularly there are pictures in Commons that are deleted because there license is not compatible with Commons. At Commons a revolution is taking place because the basic building blocks for it to become truly useful are in place. We are all invited to include "depicts" statements effectively linking them to Wikidata, to multilinguality, and make images findable. 
It is relatively straightforward to replace license information with  wikidata and use it for a purpose. There is one tiny proviso; it means that English Wikipedia material has to be dealt with in the same way. Preferably in the same database. It then follows that all the true freely licensed material is part of Commons and its policies, for the rest there are the exemptions, the material that is allowed for use in English Wikipedia is part of English Wikipedia and its policies. When you then look for material to use in whatever project, the license limits what you can use, what you find. For material that we want to include that has an incompatible license, we find that we cannot use it in our projects and we may choose if and how we expose it to the world.
Effectively what fits the Commons policies is usable at all our projects, the other stuff relies on the license involved. An example, an original that is reduced in size to fit the "fair use" criteria has a place but is not available. Obvious exceptions the care takers of our material. 
The biggest benefit I see is that we bring together what is divided and bring options to the pruning process of Commons that enable it to recognise stuff that has a place in "fair use" situations. It opens up our content linguistically and it will definitely make us more inclusively for a world beyond the two U-s.Thanks,      GerardM
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 17:25, Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]> wrote:

 "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if you want it.

We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on line instead of simply asking the uploader. 

However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary. Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should be the one to clean the mess.
A.




   Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <[hidden email]> ha scritto: 

 Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
earlier this year:

https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866

However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
blocked on other projects, does not help either

Best
Yaroslav

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta <[hidden email]> wrote:

> This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated there.
> Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> alternative version of Commons).
> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this "popularity"
> problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>
> Thanks
> User:Titodutta
>
>
>
> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > Commons.
> > >
> > > -
> > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > had to
> > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts an
> > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> for
> > the movement.
> > >
> > > see:
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > -
> > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > the question why to
> > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> Pinterest?
> > >
> > > -
> > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> Some
> > Wikipedians are
> > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > sisters.
> > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> user
> > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or in
> > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support, etc.).
> > >
> > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > problems are known already now.
> > >
> > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > >
> > > Roland
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > >
> > >
> > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > >
> > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> > people don't contribute more broadly?
> > >
> > > ~Benjamin
> >
> > A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> > folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> > links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> > follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> > actually attract a few high quality photographers.
> >
> > A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> > could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> > and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> > same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> > as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
> >
> > Fae
> > --
> > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe> 
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
 
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

geni
In reply to this post by Benjamin Ikuta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:05, Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people don't contribute more broadly?

Perhaps although similar research with regards to wikipedia has never
produced particularly useful results.



--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

geni
In reply to this post by Fæ
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 08:33, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> actually attract a few high quality photographers.


Pretty sure the most common license terms would breach the upload
conditions of one or both of those sites. The problem is that most
websites ask for a non exclusive license to whatever they want want
with an image without giving credit which pretty much limits you to PD
or MIT

--
geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

geni
In reply to this post by Gnangarra
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 05:12, Gnangarra <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Personally I think WLE, WLM need bigger budgets all round with sponsors
> from retail outlets offering photography prizes and WMF & Affiliates
> offering the primary prize that lets people buy gear like cameras and lenses
>


The size of those contests means the average content has little chance
of winning. On top of that phones are in most cases good enough.
Attempts to throw money at the problem haven't been that effective.
Wikimedia UK has equipment for loan but use levels vary. Providing
tickets to things has some success but again rather mixed. Ultimately
you tend to run into the problem that wikipedia editing tends to be a
solo activity and most people don't want to deal with formal links to
organisations.

Geni

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Aron Demian
In reply to this post by Tito Dutta
On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 10:32, Tito Dutta <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia Commons
> when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the scope
> of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
>

 In August 2019 this question was brought up in the first round (iteration)
of the Recommendations. It was unfortunately intertwined with another
heavy, but tangential topic: the ToU. Accordingly half of the discussions
are unrelated to this question on the page. There was quite a bit of drama
caused by the superficial proposal, I'm surprised it's already forgotten
:-D
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_1/Diversity/9#Q_3_What_will_change_because_of_the_Recommendation?

The most acceptable solution proposed at that time was a separate wiki that
would run the same software as Commons:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/NonFreeWiki
That's a pretty good proposal (actually the second one in years) that has
run out of energy, just like the previous one.


IMHO Commons and the mediawiki software gives no benefits over popular and
easy-to-use image sharing services for non-wikipedians. Additionally, on
wiki newcomers can get dragged into wikidramas despite their best intent
and there is no protection for them. Learning the non-straightforward
communication patterns on-wiki and establishing a "standing" is a
multi-year effort, which simply is not necessary on the popular platforms.
There content creators can focus on building their follower-base instead.
The features and services they benefit from don't coincide with the
features the wiki software and communities are creating or looking for.
Uploading to Wikimedia is more like an ideological statement that might
require significant investment without benefits or with unexpected negative
benefits.
Tl;dr: why would anyone take a hard and uncomfortable path, when there is
an easy and beneficial path.

Regardless, a not-strictly-free media-hosting wiki would be great imho. For
wikipedians. To develop a product and culture that's suitable for regular
photographers would require talented and strongly motivated IT and HR
personnel, which is not present in the WMF, nor is it attainable: we've
seen people, who have put their hearts into their work, just to leave
prematurely, under unclear circumstances. Presumably the work environment
is not supportive of people who could envision and manifest such a product.


> 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> Wikimedia Commons.


That's true for me. As a newcomer / non-wikipedian the first issue I had
with "Commons" was: "What does it mean?" I think outside Wikimedia this
name might be meaningless for many people.
"The commons is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all
members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a
habitable earth."
Though there is logic in that, it's very abstract. I don't associate that
naturally with "Let's share my photos!" Rather, it makes me think of
sharing the water I bring from a fountain.

I remember when I've learned it's about sharing media - images primarily -
I was thrilled. After uploading dozens of images, requesting and learning
AWB - to effectively manage images in batches - my impression is it's good
to have, but takes serious, hard work to use it properly, involving some
advanced level form-filling skills, that's fun to learn (at least for me,
just for the challenge), but not fun to do regularly and I assume it's not
even fun to learn for many people.


> 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue of
> seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
>

4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On Facebook,
> Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This is a
> major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> star) is good for motivation as well.
>

IMHO the primary motivation to use those platforms is the social aspect:
creating a follower-base, that brings the benefits: patreon, social
influencing, gigs.
Wikis don't have these incentives, the rules of the game (in terms of game
theory) are fundamentally different, social status is not the result of how
engaging the content is. The effective strategies on wiki might not be
interesting or suitable for content creators. To expect them to invest
effort into Wikimedia would require something given in exchange: a modern,
comfortable interface and a welcoming community.


Aron
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Ziko van Dijk-3
In reply to this post by Alessandro Marchetti via Wikimedia-l
Hello,
I would like to support Roland's and other's remarks that Wikimedia Commons
has some serious problems and needs improvement in many ways. Some of these
problems are very difficult to overcome, such as a better, multilingual
search because we don't have all the necessary meta data.
Other problems could be dealt with in a short time. For example, the main
page (or main pages, in the different languages) has too many items and
links. General and less general links; links to content by topic; links to
other Wikimedia wikis, links to mainpages in other languages. Some of this
is repeated in the left side bar. All together, also with general wiki
function links - I counted 291 links or things to click on!

My ideal would be a clean page
* with a short explanation what the site is or does,
* and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search
content", "contribute content", "learn more".
Is it a realistic dream of me that we would see such a clean-up within the
next 5 or 50 years?
Kind regards
Ziko











Am So., 17. Mai 2020 um 17:25 Uhr schrieb Alessandro Marchetti via
Wikimedia-l <[hidden email]>:

>  "there are way less people maintaining it than it is needed" is naif
> summary of what is going on. IMHO. There are people maintaining it in a way
> that is counterproductive. You can always create an efficient workflow, if
> you want it.
>
> We don't need people that delete an image of a statue in the USA because
> of no:fop even if it is a small size in a big composition and than keep the
> other ones in the category that are in any case used on enwikipedia. We
> don't need people copying and pasting quickly motivations without even
> reading them confusing countries or scenarios, as it happened (they almost
> never apologize, of course, because they are so busy). We don't need people
> that when a deletion procedure is rejected keep insisting looking at the
> contribution of an user stressing them until they find something. We don't
> need people deleting low-resolution files that were few months short form
> entering the public domain, when in the same time they could have deleted
> 100 times more of useless images. We don't need people arguing to delete
> ancient images that couldn't be proved "not to be recent" against good
> faith.  We don't need people starting deletion procedure if an image is on
> line instead of simply asking the uploader.
>
> However, it's a fact that some active members of the community created
> over the years a system where such people are encouraged to act in such a
> rigid way and probably even believe that their behaviour is necessary.
> Given these circumstances, it is not the moral duty of the silent majority
> of users to deal with the consequences of such behaviour. They can go on
> and try to delete everything the way they do and they will also deal with
> the huge amount of backlog they create wasting the time of users. It's only
> fair to me that whoever keep encouraging such unefficient workflow should
> be the one to clean the mess.
> A.
>
>
>
>
>    Il domenica 17 maggio 2020, 12:15:30 CEST, Yaroslav Blanter <
> [hidden email]> ha scritto:
>
>  Concerning using Commons as a photo hosting, I have written a blog post
> earlier this year:
>
>
> https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/wikimedia-commons-as-private-photo-hosting/2866
>
> However, I can not see how it can become anything close to social media,
> nor do I think it should be. It already has a lot of garbage, and there are
> way less people maintaining it than it is needed. That it is one of the
> nastiest communities among all Wikimedia projects, with people being
> allowed to do things for which they would become instantly long-term
> blocked on other projects, does not help either
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:32 AM Tito Dutta <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > This discussion, although started with a question "why don't people
> > contribute to Wikimedia Commons, now after actually the discussion above,
> > covers more topics. A few notes, observations and comments:
> > 1) I remember a major discussion took place somewhere on Wikimedia
> Commons
> > when one of the strategy2030 draft recommendations suggested uploading
> > non-free images on Wikimedia Commons. That discussion was also on the
> scope
> > of Wikimedia Commons. I wish I could recall where exactly it took place.
> > However, I am pretty sure that many of you have read or participated
> there.
> > Most probably there I first read the idea of "uncommon/uncommons" (or an
> > alternative version of Commons).
> > 2) Wikimedia Commons is most possibly/definitely less popular than
> > Wikipedia. I believe many editors start from Wikipedia and then move to
> > Wikimedia Commons. There is, of course, another reason, when someone
> > gradually becomes more experienced on Wikipedia, they learn they need to
> > spend some time on Wikimedia Commons for the article–photos they are
> > working on. I "personally" do "not" feel the solution of this
> "popularity"
> > problem is rebranding. We need more Wikimedia Commons-focused plans,
> > initiatives, and strategies (I find this is true for all other projects).
> > 3) Yes, the difficulty of using the app/web interface might be an issue
> of
> > seeing less contribution as well. You have different photo-sharing
> > platforms which uploads photos in 1-click. Commons upload process is
> > longer. (I am not saying the process is bad, of course, we need all the
> > steps, and there is not an unnecessary step there.)
> > 4) The human emotion and interaction part is kind of missing: On
> Facebook,
> > Instagram the likes, comments etc one gets, work as a motivation. This
> is a
> > major issue. On FB, or Instagram an uploader can connect with people
> > instantly, and their responses/reactions are quick as well. (Here also, I
> > am not really suggesting anything, just keeping it as an observation)
> > Let's talk about Google Photos, their badges, photo views analytics, and
> > email time to time (eg: Your photo is making a difference, or You are a
> > star) is good for motivation as well.
> >
> > Thanks
> > User:Titodutta
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 13:03, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 07:20, Roland Unger
> > > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > There are several causes why people do not upload their photos to
> > > Commons.
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >  Wikimedia Commons is less known like the other Wikimedia sisters. We
> > > had to
> > > > increase the awareness of these projects including the Foundation
> > > > itself. But all people speak only about Wikipedia, and nobody starts
> an
> > > > ad campaign for the sisters to overcome this. Not only the scope of
> > > Commons is broader, that of the movement is broader, too. Maybe the
> > > Foundation can improve its support for the sisters to attract new users
> > for
> > > the movement.
> > > >
> > > > see:
> > >
> >
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/02/07/how-does-the-world-see-wikimedia-brands/
> > > > -
> > > >  Many photographers (and Wikipedians) will be become famous. There is
> > > the question why to
> > > > publish at Wikimedia Commons instead of Instagram, Flickr, or
> > Pinterest?
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > >  There is almost no support for the sister projects by Wikipedians.
> > Some
> > > Wikipedians are
> > > > living in their own world, and sometimes they argue against their
> > > > sisters.
> > > > - For many users it is difficult to use Commons or other Wikimedia
> > > projects. They have to fight against an ancient and not user-friendly
> > user
> > > interface (for instance manual edits of things stored in EXIF data or
> in
> > > the user account, adding categories without any automatic support,
> etc.).
> > > >
> > > > I am not really sure if an investigation should be done because most
> > > problems are known already now.
> > > >
> > > > I think we should keep the opportunity of commercial use, because all
> > > Wikimedia products should be used freely. For instance, what shall an
> > > officer at a travel agency do if she/he cannot use Wikimedia products
> > > freely because of commercial-usage restrictions?
> > > >
> > > > Roland
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >>> Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]> 05/17/20 5:07 AM >>>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> > > Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> > > broader than that of Wikipedia.
> > > >
> > > > Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why
> > > people don't contribute more broadly?
> > > >
> > > > ~Benjamin
> > >
> > > A "share" link on image pages would go a long way to fixing this. If
> > > folks on instagram, flickr etc. got used to seeing nice images with
> > > links back to Commons, we might expect 1% to 4% of those readers to
> > > follow the link back to the source, so if a few go viral, that might
> > > actually attract a few high quality photographers.
> > >
> > > A "mirror" tool would also be a great addition. If a photographer
> > > could easily share some of their photos by picking from their gallery
> > > and pushing to their flickr/instagram and a Commons account at the
> > > same time, all on a cc-by-sa license, they would come to see Commons
> > > as part of increasing their own internet footprint.
> > >
> > > Fae
> > > --
> > > [hidden email] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Commons

Robert Myers
In reply to this post by Benjamin Ikuta
Well some people do, but it is when they get trolled by other contributors
and/or overzealous Admin comes along and deletes the file. They quickly
lose interest, in turn telling other people not to bother.

I just had another lot of photographs tagged by a troll, in which an Admin
deletes (
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Rachel_Priest_after_the_Sydney_Thunder_vs_Adelaide_Strikers_WBBL_game_at_Robertson_Oval.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=File:Abandoned_farm_house_in_Hillgrove_01.jpg).
These have been on Commons for two + years, using the same camera gear I
have used over the years. If it is enough for me to give up on the project,
it would be the same for any other user but for a newbie it is something
that would make me run for the hills (depart quickly as possible)!

On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 1:07 PM Benjamin Ikuta <[hidden email]>
wrote:

>
>
> Anecdotally, it seems people sometimes don't upload their photos to
> Commons because they don't realize that the scope of Commons is much
> broader than that of Wikipedia.
>
> Has there been, or should there be, any research into this, or why people
> don't contribute more broadly?
>
> ~Benjamin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>



--

Robert Myers
Secretary - Wikimedia Australia
M: +61 400 670 288
[hidden email]
http://www.wikimedia.org.au

Wikimedia Australia Inc. is an independent charitable organisation which
supports the efforts of the Wikimedia Foundation in Australia. We welcome
your support by membership or donations to keep the Wikimedia mission alive.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: [hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12