[Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

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

[Wikimedia-l] How to fix Commons

MZMcBride-2
I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.

geni wrote:
>2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
>whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't
>qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average
>en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.

An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)  Or at least
make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see
the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.

>3)Lack of positive feedback. I'm not sure there is any way around this.
>Automated notices that image you uploaded is being used on project Y would
>get annoying for some users. I guess having it as a well advertised
>feature that people could turn on would be an option.

It's a great option if we want most users to not use the feature. User
defaults are _hugely_ important. Most users (probably over 90%) have few
uploads, so consequently looking at the default from this perspective
alone, it makes sense to enable media usage notifications by default (at
least in-site notices, maybe not e-mail notices). We could even (smartly)
disable media usage notifications at a particular upload threshold (e.g.,
if you have greater than 1,000 uploads, you probably don't want the
notices). There are a few edge cases here, such as an image being added to
a template, but these are likely solvable.

>Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of googling your nic+
>"CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of
>users mind.

Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers
in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images,
TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches. These aren't
trivial technical problems, but they're also not insurmountable. Now,
whether investing in such a "thanks for your upload, look where it's being
used!" service is worth the cost, given the benefit, is a separate
question, as always.

For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less. Commons search needs:

* search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're
  apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);

* search by color; and

* search by file size and type.

As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
amazing. Building up and tearing down a queue is still not trivial. :-(

Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized
images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos) and additional supported
file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have). And much more.
Currently we have a database of free media, but I think it'd be really
cool if we made it dramatically easier to find, re-use, and re-mix this
media. And, for better or worse, we know we cannot hope that the
Wikimedia Foundation alone will fix these problems.

>4)third parties choosing other projects. Thing is for large dumps of
>poorly curated content with messy copyright issues things like the
>internet archive are probably a better match.

This is a nasty cop-out. We already do this in a limited fashion, but we
need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons.
There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds
of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are
at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs and
individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.

>5)Some commons admins are behaving problematically. Yes but I'm not sure
>what to do about that.

Eh, I think Commons certainly has its share of bad admins, but I'm not
sure it's the admins who are the problem. As you say, broader
clarification about what is and isn't acceptable at Commons would probably
be helpful to have.

It's likely better to spend time and energy focused on the tasks discussed
in this e-mail or elsewhere across Wikimedia. I think doing so will
actually move Commons forward. Not that it's bad to occasionally vent
frustrations, but we can do better (in more ways than one!).

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

svetlana
MZMcBride wrote:
> geni wrote:
> >2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
> >whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't
> >qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average
> >en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
>
> An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)  Or at least
> make them far less obnoxious. Saying "if you look over here, you'll see
> the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.

Aye. I am a not malicious user, but I had over a handful of automated notices at Commons. To keep my user talk page readable, I had to redact them (replace each such notice with one line of plain text with links to relevant documentation).

Would we consider (truly) semi-automating the process? :-)

Let's use talk page canned responses.  That's what this set of unofficial JS-free tools is doing for reviewing draft submissions at English Wikipedia, including communication at the draft talk page and the author talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gryllida/draft/under-review

For instance, the text field with canned responses may look like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft%20talk:Foo&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/preload&preloadtitle=&editintro=User:Gryllida/t/TalkDo/draft::review::notready::drafttalk/editintro

Notice that it's characteristic of this message:
a) it doesn't look like a banner. It looks like a normal message.
b) it has free space for the reviewer to leave a personal comment to the user, which means a more human approach.

There are some overheads.
1) It would be much easier to use as a banner shown only to reviewers during page edit. I don't know how to do that.
2) It would be much easier to use if preloadparams=[] thing from URL reflected on not only page content, but also on page edit banner. It does not, which introduces an overhead with the username parameter.

Hope that helps. (I don't have the past context of this conversation to have confidence in that I'm bringing up a relevant point.)

MZMcBride wrote:
> For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
functionality suck a lot less.

+1

MZMcBride wrote:
> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
> amazing.

We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).

--
svetlana

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Andre Engels
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana <[hidden email]> wrote:

> MZMcBride wrote:
>> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
>> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
>> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
>> amazing.
>
> We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call it a game).

Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets
supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that,
with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of
what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at
https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be
used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like
[[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a
certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems
likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as
paintings which have no author-category).


--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Amazon Sec. Team messages-noreply@amazon.com
There are lots of "unidentified (blah blah)" categories - such as birds,
cars, flowers, and etc etc. How about these categories?

-Yena Hong (Revi)
[[User:-revi]]
-- Sent from Android --
2014. 12. 13. 오후 5:08에 "Andre Engels" <[hidden email]>님이 작성:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > MZMcBride wrote:
> >> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
> >> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
> >> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
> >> amazing.
> >
> > We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to
> build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call
> it a game).
>
> Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets
> supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that,
> with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of
> what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be
> used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like
> [[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a
> certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems
> likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as
> paintings which have no author-category).
>
>
> --
> André Engels, [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] How to fix Commons

Jane Darnell
In reply to this post by Andre Engels
No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree,
but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been
sorted into any other category. The concept of categorizing is also based
on existing categories, and the process of creating categories, though not
difficult, is not easily available to newbies. Tagging allows the user
complete freedom in associating concepts with images. Ideas around tagging
on Commons have been rejected as putting an extra burden on anti-vandal
fighters, in addition to being possibly useless in the goal of "making
search on Commons suck less"

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Andre Engels <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:33 AM, svetlana <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > MZMcBride wrote:
> >> As much as the term is an awful buzzword, Commons could also do with
> >> additional gamification, from what I've seen. If we can set up an easy
> >> keyword/tagging system, having users help us sort and tag media would be
> >> amazing.
> >
> > We already have such system. It's called categories. If we would like to
> build a prettier interface for it, I'm all ears (although I wouldn't call
> it a game).
>
> Gamification here relates to one type of interface, where a user gets
> supplied a random example of an issue, and then tries to resolve that,
> with a single resolution being just a small task. For an example of
> what that looks like in a Wikimedia- context, see the Wikidata game at
> https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-game/. A game could for example be
> used to re-categorize files in categories that are too general (like
> [[Category:People]]), to categorize uncategorized images or to add a
> certain type of category to files where for some reason it seems
> likely to apply (for example, images that in some way are described as
> paintings which have no author-category).
>
>
> --
> André Engels, [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] How to fix Commons

MZMcBride-2
Jane Darnell wrote:
>No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
>"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
>horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
>horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.

This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.

>Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree,
>but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been
>sorted into any other category.

This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the
number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both
Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the
technical issue here?

>The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the
>process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily
>available to newbies.

It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category
description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members),
but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.

>Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with
>images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an
>extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly
>useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"

Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're
talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll
put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable
person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many
reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and
genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.

MZMcBride



_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Fæ
I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here
rather than on Commons.

All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village
pump.

Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this
is not.

Fae
On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Jane Darnell wrote:
> >No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
> >"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
> >horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
> >horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
>
> This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
> problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
> describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
> a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
> removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
>
> >Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree,
> >but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been
> >sorted into any other category.
>
> This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the
> number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both
> Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the
> technical issue here?
>
> >The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the
> >process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily
> >available to newbies.
>
> It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category
> description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members),
> but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.
>
> >Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with
> >images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an
> >extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly
> >useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
>
> Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're
> talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll
> put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable
> person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many
> reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and
> genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] How to fix Commons

Bruentrup
Perhaps because on Commons village pump, non-regulars, interacting
politely and civilly, are harassed, abused and also blocked without cause.

Perhaps because the discussion system at Commons is broken, and
participation there is oftentimes a complete waste of time.

BRUENTRUP

On 12/13/14, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here
> rather than on Commons.
>
> All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village
> pump.
>
> Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this
> is not.
>
> Fae
> On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Jane Darnell wrote:
>> >No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
>> >"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
>> >horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
>> >horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
>>
>> This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
>> problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
>> describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
>> a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
>> removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
>>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Austin Hair
In reply to this post by Fæ
That's true of most project-specific discussions, but in this case, I
don't think the answer to "Commons isn't open to policy discussions"
is "Go start a policy discussion on Commons."

As long as Commons is meant to be a repository for the whole movement,
I think it is fairly topical here.

Austin

On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I cannot see the point of raising questions about how Commons works here
> rather than on Commons.
>
> All of these points have been raised before and discussed on the village
> pump.
>
> Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this
> is not.
>
> Fae
> On 13 Dec 2014 16:06, "MZMcBride" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Jane Darnell wrote:
>> >No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
>> >"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
>> >horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
>> >horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.
>>
>> This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
>> problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
>> describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
>> a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
>> removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.
>>
>> >Moreover, most pictures of horses are not even in the horse category tree,
>> >but are categorized under some GLAM donation category and have never been
>> >sorted into any other category.
>>
>> This doesn't make any sense to me either. There's no real limit to the
>> number of categories that a file can have. Why not have both
>> Category:Horse and Category:Donated_by_some_institution? What's the
>> technical issue here?
>>
>> >The concept of categorizing is also based on existing categories, and the
>> >process of creating categories, though not difficult, is not easily
>> >available to newbies.
>>
>> It's already fairly simple to add a category to a page (the category
>> description page doesn't need to exist for a category to have members),
>> but we need to make it simpler and more fun, as I said.
>>
>> >Tagging allows the user complete freedom in associating concepts with
>> >images. Ideas around tagging on Commons have been rejected as putting an
>> >extra burden on anti-vandal fighters, in addition to being possibly
>> >useless in the goal of "making search on Commons suck less"
>>
>> Useless? Tagging is a major part of search. I have no idea what you're
>> talking about here. My understanding is that GerardM believes that we'll
>> put tags into Wikidata instead of on Commons. I don't think any reasonable
>> person seriously questions the utility or virtue of tagging. I think many
>> reasonable look at the current classification system on Commons and
>> genuinely do find it completely useless and incredibly frustrating.
>>
>> MZMcBride
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> [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
> [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
[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] How to fix Commons

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 13 December 2014 at 16:06, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Jane Darnell wrote:

>>No, tagging is different. GerardM blogged about this with the example of
>>"horse". You can "tag" a photo as being of a horse by putting it in the
>>horse category, but in no time it will be filed under some subcategory of
>>horse. There are relatively few images in the top "horse" category.

> This is one of the most baffling parts of Commons to me. Why is it a
> problem to have images of horses in Category:Horse? You seem to be
> describing a social problem ("it will be filed under some subcategory [by
> a person]"), not a technical problem. If people are vandalizing files by
> removing useful categories, we should tell them to stop immediately.



Pretty much. We use minute sub-sub-sub-categories because Boolean
arithmetic on categories used to be unfeasible; now it's feasible, but
we don't do it because that's not the convention. So it would require
convincing the Commons community that moving to categories as tags is
a good idea.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Tomasz Ganicz
2014-12-13 18:37 GMT+01:00 David Gerard <[hidden email]>:
>
>
> Pretty much. We use minute sub-sub-sub-categories because Boolean
> arithmetic on categories used to be unfeasible; now it's feasible, but
> we don't do it because that's not the convention. So it would require
> convincing the Commons community that moving to categories as tags is
> a good idea.
>


But the categories and tags are two different ways of creating of
organizing items. Tagging is flat, categories are hierarchical by
defintion. Using categories as a kind of tags makes all the mess... As
categories do make sense for encyclopedic articles  - for pictures and
other media it does not work well...  For example - if I want to make a
picture of Polish actress searchable - the most natural method is to add
tags: "actors",  "Polish" an "woman". But in Commons I have to add it to
category named "Actresses from Poland". The upload wizzard is not very
helpful - as if I start inserting to the category field "Polish" (which
seems to be most natural thing) it won't show me categories "Actors
from..."  Moreover this category is not very helpful for readers and reuses
- as they have no option to get list of pictures of all Polish actors as
long as they don't know this "from" convention and speak English...

Probably somewhere on Commons there was long discussion of moving "Polish
actors" category to "Actors from Poland" (and for all other professions and
nationalities) and starting it again might be treated as a kind of
trolling,  but I really don't know where and when it happened and I really
don't care. I just want to know how to properly mark pictures to make them
searchable as uploader, and how to find them as reader/reuser. And at the
moment Commons from both this POVs is quite obviously dysfunctional. The
issue is to let uploaders easy mark pictures to make them to be able to be
easily found...  Really...



Tomek "Polimerek" Ganicz
http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Polimerek
http://www.ganicz.pl/poli/
http://www.cbmm.lodz.pl/work.php?id=29&title=tomasz-ganicz
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Fæ
In reply to this post by Bruentrup
On 13 Dec 2014 16:41, "Bruentrup" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Perhaps because on Commons village pump, non-regulars, interacting
> politely and civilly, are harassed, abused and also blocked without cause.
>
> Perhaps because the discussion system at Commons is broken, and
> participation there is oftentimes a complete waste of time.
>
> BRUENTRUP

What you describe is nothing like the friendly project I have supported
almost every week for the past four years.

Fae
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Austin Hair
On 13 December 2014 at 16:43, Austin Hair <[hidden email]> wrote:

> As long as Commons is meant to be a repository for the whole movement,
> I think it is fairly topical here.


>> Other threads on this list were argued to be about multiple projects, this
>> is not.


Pretty much the entire reason these threads exist and keep happening
is that Commons is actively being a huge problem for multiple other
projects.


- d.

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Bruentrup
In reply to this post by Fæ
You are a "regular". I was describing unfriendly behavior of the
administrators, clerks of Commons, towards non-regulars / outsiders,
who are directed  to Commons by WMF staff to get their images removed,
only to be abused and/or blocked.

When these affected persons thereafter use the OTRS using email to get
their copy-vio images removed, these emails are not acknowledged and
not acted upon. When reminders are sent to OTRS these are ignored. So
hardly a friendly place, or even an efficient one. It seems there is
no system at Commons to give an OTRS ticket number or expected time
to resolution, after an email informally reporting infringement is received..

It is also unrealistic for WMF to suggest affected outsider persons
resolve their Commons IPR issues with volunteers on public notice
boards.

It is also strange for WMF's community advocates to publicly suggest
that WMF's legal department does not have the capacity to be the first
point  of contact for every image takedown request. Believe you me
that nobody wants to burden legal@WMF for the Common community's
unfriendliness by sending DMCA or similar notices.

WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns,
and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.

BRUENTRUP

On 12/13/14, Fæ <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 13 Dec 2014 16:41, "Bruentrup" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps because on Commons village pump, non-regulars, interacting
>> politely and civilly, are harassed, abused and also blocked without cause.
>>
>> Perhaps because the discussion system at Commons is broken, and
>> participation there is oftentimes a complete waste of time.
>>
>> BRUENTRUP
>
> What you describe is nothing like the friendly project I have supported
> almost every week for the past four years.
>
> Fae

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

pajz
Hi,

On 13 December 2014 at 19:46, Bruentrup <[hidden email]> wrote:

> WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns,
> and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.
>

hmm, do you have evidence of this? There are often delays when it comes to
acknowledging the receipt of permission statements (due to the high amount
of such emails), but frankly I have never heard of copyright infringement
notices not being processed. From my impression this is one area where we
are particularly swift to react, and respecting third-party copyrights is
one of the cornerstones of the project (incidentally, the original thread
here was started precisely because, supposedly, Commons users take
copyright law too seriously). That doesn't mean there might not be an
outlier occasionally, but almost all of these copyright-related complaints
that I see are dealt with within a few days at the most. (That doesn't, and
shouldn't, mean that everything is acted on just because someone claims
their rights were violated without providing any proof of that claim. In
this case it might be necessary to resort to the DMCA's notice process
since it's the only way to at least expose the claimant to some danger
should his assertion prove untrue.)

Also, the extremely low number of DMCA take-down requests (see <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Transparency_Report/DMCA_Takedown_Notices>)
seems to contradict your claim that they are the "norm." It would be highly
implausible that you can run a platform like the Wikimedia projects at 58
DMCA requests in two years (apparently less than 10/year related to
Commons) unless you have a pretty efficient mechanism apart from that in
place to address such issues.

Patrik
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Bruentrup
Hi

One of those 6 successful DMCA's of 2014 was filed by us.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/DMCA_India_Against_Corruption_logo

Yet recently when my client, in good faith, reports further
infringement of their same logo at Commons village pump, we have a
Commons administrator agitating the community against my client. This
administrator is self declared on-wiki, on his user page, as an
employee of an NGO whose CEO is an infringer of my client's works and
has regularly impersonated my client. This administrator is also the
Commons OTRS administrator.

Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with
no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted
and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a
haven for pirates and infringers.

The WMF must urgently install a professional take down system at
Commons which is autonomous, ticketed, and with DMCAs as an appellate
mechanism. Till then the WMF must also immediately cease advising
affected non-users to resolve their infringements with their
"communities".

BRUENTRUP

On 12/14/14, pajz <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 13 December 2014 at 19:46, Bruentrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> WMF must implement a professional ticketed system for media takedowns,
>> and DMCAs must be the exception rather than the norm.
>>
>
> hmm, do you have evidence of this? There are often delays when it comes to
> acknowledging the receipt of permission statements (due to the high amount
> of such emails), but frankly I have never heard of copyright infringement
> notices not being processed. From my impression this is one area where we
> are particularly swift to react, and respecting third-party copyrights is
> one of the cornerstones of the project (incidentally, the original thread
> here was started precisely because, supposedly, Commons users take
> copyright law too seriously). That doesn't mean there might not be an
> outlier occasionally, but almost all of these copyright-related complaints
> that I see are dealt with within a few days at the most. (That doesn't, and
> shouldn't, mean that everything is acted on just because someone claims
> their rights were violated without providing any proof of that claim. In
> this case it might be necessary to resort to the DMCA's notice process
> since it's the only way to at least expose the claimant to some danger
> should his assertion prove untrue.)
>
> Also, the extremely low number of DMCA take-down requests (see <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Transparency_Report/DMCA_Takedown_Notices>)
> seems to contradict your claim that they are the "norm." It would be highly
> implausible that you can run a platform like the Wikimedia projects at 58
> DMCA requests in two years (apparently less than 10/year related to
> Commons) unless you have a pretty efficient mechanism apart from that in
> place to address such issues.
>
> Patrik
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] How to fix Commons

geni
On 14 December 2014 at 05:49, Bruentrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with
> no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted
> and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a
> haven for pirates and infringers.
>

Just ran a search on  India Against Corruption on the copyright queue.
Nothing. Can only assume any emails were sent to the wrong place

--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

geni
In reply to this post by MZMcBride-2
On 13 December 2014 at 02:48, MZMcBride <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I felt kind of meh about the previous thread, so I'm forking it.
>
> geni wrote:
> >2)Large number of semi automated deletion notices. This is going to happen
> >whatever you do unless you ban all uploads from people who aren't
> >qualified intellectual property lawyers. Eh just look at your average
> >en.wikipedia talk page for a semi active editor.
>
> An alternate solution would be to ban automated notices. :-)



Individualised ones don't scale


> Or at least
> make them far less obnoxious.


Been tried. A lot. It doesn't make any difference mind but I assume people
will continue trying.


> Saying "if you look over here, you'll see
> the same or worse" is a pretty poor argument, in my opinion.
>
>
Going after commons for a project wide issue however pretty pointless.


> >Use by third parties is even harder to track. Short of googling your nic+
> >"CC-BY-SA" and the like. Even that only turns up a limited subset of
> >users mind.
>
> Eh, if they're hotlinking from Commons, we presumably have HTTP referers
> in the server access logs. Otherwise, there are services (Google Images,
> TinEye, etc.) that can perform reverse image searches.


They tend to object to people trying to run too many automated searches on
their services.


>
> For Commons, my personal view is that I'd like to see its search
> functionality suck a lot less.


Being worked on

https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CirrusSearch



> Commons search needs:
>
> * search by tag (which we have already with categories, but we're
>   apparently supposed to wait until the magical future of Wikidata);
>

Been on the wishlist for years.



> * search by color; and
>
> * search by file size and type.
>
>
Doable but I don't think it the CirrusSearch people are working on anything
like that.


> Commons also needs at least four in-browser editors (for rasterized
> images, vector graphics, audio files, and videos)


In browser editing is kinda dicey.


> and additional supported
> file upload types (e.g., .ico would be great to have).


 computer icons in Microsoft Windows?

I'd put 3D file formats higher up the list. Not that either will every
actually happen.




> This is a nasty cop-out.


Not really. Recognising our limits has its uses and if we can turn the
chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs know will point them
in useful direction we at least get to know what is going on.


> We already do this in a limited fashion, but we
> need to get better about soliciting and accepting donations to Commons.
> There's definitely a shared interest in preserving and promoting all kinds
> of media that we're not doing very well to capture and utilize. There are
> at least two broad categories I see that could make donations: GLAMs


That's ongoing but it has issues with diminishing returns

https://geniice.wordpress.com/2011/04/30/the-point-of-diminishing-returns-on-image-donations/



> and
> individuals who have an article that currently has no image or a bad image.
>

Generally works better if done by the project in question rather than
commons.


--
geni
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[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] How to fix Commons

Bruentrup
In reply to this post by geni
Please recheck your queue

The first email was sent on 28. November 2014 subject "Complaint about
images on Wikimedia Commons". A reminder was sent on Dec 2, 2014

Both these emails were sent by <name redacted> the "National Media
Coordinator, India Against Corruption, jan andolan" to
"[hidden email]".

On 4 December they further escalated OTRS inaction and silence to Lila
Tretikov "[hidden email]". Yet again no reply or action or even a
rejection, which would cause my client to file a DMCA.

In other previous DMCAs of 2014, eg. the Herzog estate, we can also
observe such long delays for WMF to reply to affected persons who
initially approach directly, and the great reluctance at WMF to
"circumvent the community processes" without DMCA motions.

BRUENTRUP

On 12/14/14, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 14 December 2014 at 05:49, Bruentrup <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Not surprisingly my client's OTRS emails have gone unacknowledged with
>> no action taken, and my client's spokesperson was repeatedly insulted
>> and abused on-line at the highly toxic Commons which has become a
>> haven for pirates and infringers.
>>
>
> Just ran a search on  India Against Corruption on the copyright queue.
> Nothing. Can only assume any emails were sent to the wrong place
>
> --
> geni
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> [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
[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] How to fix Commons

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by geni
geni, 14/12/2014 09:13:
> if we can turn the
> chapters into respected points of contact which GLAMs

Is there any evidence to think they aren't?

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12