intelligence in flagging

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

intelligence in flagging

stevertigo
I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg

This, as noted in the text, is a crop of
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg
which is found to be
public domain.

Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image also has special code in
the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image. Nevertheless the
image got flagged.

This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and sadly a lack
of intelligence,
in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time would be to simply
reference the
given link, and add the appropriate information.

Stevertigo

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intelligence in flagging

peter green-2
on a related note admins (who i suspect are the bulk of this lists members)
should remember that anyone can throw any tag they like onto a page. When
deleting an image because of a tag imo an admin should at MINIMUM.

1: follow any links on the page (especially ones within wikimedia) looking
for obvious license/source information
2: check the page history (in case the source/license info was removed by
vandals)
3: check that (if applicable) the correct steps to notify the uploader (as
mentioned in the no source/license tags) were actually carried out (btw do
you think we should change the policies to require notifying users on what
appears to be thier primary wiki as well as on commons, i know i only log
into commons occasionally atm because i'm not actively involved in any
goings on there since the really unused list became unusable). If they
weren't notified then the most reasonable course of action is probablly to
notify them and reset the clock).
4: perform a check usage (we really need a proper check usage tool that
checks all wikis without causing huge server load) and deal with (at least
remove and if possible replace) any usage of the image.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of stevertigo
> Sent: 10 July 2006 22:33
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
>
>
> I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg
>
> This, as noted in the text, is a crop of
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg
> which is found to be
> public domain.
>
> Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image
> also has special code in
> the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image.
> Nevertheless the
> image got flagged.
>
> This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain
> automation, and sadly a lack
> of intelligence,
> in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time
> would be to simply
> reference the
> given link, and add the appropriate information.
>
> Stevertigo
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

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

Re: intelligence in flagging

stevertigo
I dont know about all that. All I advocate is a basic bonehead level reading of whats
posted with the image.
It would appear that some are using bots to find and autopost flags and comments. Dunno
if thats as useful.

S

--- peter green <[hidden email]> wrote:

> on a related note admins (who i suspect are the bulk of this lists members)
> should remember that anyone can throw any tag they like onto a page. When
> deleting an image because of a tag imo an admin should at MINIMUM.
>
> 1: follow any links on the page (especially ones within wikimedia) looking
> for obvious license/source information
> 2: check the page history (in case the source/license info was removed by
> vandals)
> 3: check that (if applicable) the correct steps to notify the uploader (as
> mentioned in the no source/license tags) were actually carried out (btw do
> you think we should change the policies to require notifying users on what
> appears to be thier primary wiki as well as on commons, i know i only log
> into commons occasionally atm because i'm not actively involved in any
> goings on there since the really unused list became unusable). If they
> weren't notified then the most reasonable course of action is probablly to
> notify them and reset the clock).
> 4: perform a check usage (we really need a proper check usage tool that
> checks all wikis without causing huge server load) and deal with (at least
> remove and if possible replace) any usage of the image.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of stevertigo
> > Sent: 10 July 2006 22:33
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Subject: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
> >
> >
> > I just logged in to commons, and found a note reporting a problem with
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003-crop.jpg
> >
> > This, as noted in the text, is a crop of
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bush_War_Budget_2003.jpg
> > which is found to be
> > public domain.
> >
> > Those paying close attention will note that the cropped image
> > also has special code in
> > the title, ("-crop") indicating that its a crop of another image.
> > Nevertheless the
> > image got flagged.
> >
> > This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain
> > automation, and sadly a lack
> > of intelligence,
> > in flagging particular images. A more productive usage of time
> > would be to simply
> > reference the
> > given link, and add the appropriate information.
> >
> > Stevertigo
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commons-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intelligence in flagging

Platonides
In reply to this post by stevertigo

"stevertigo" wrote:
> This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation, and
> sadly a lack
> of intelligence,

Yes, you're right. That image was automatically flagged as no-license by
Orgullobot, so there's automation and bots are not very intelligent ;-)

The good notice is that nobody lost time flagging it, maybe it wasn't even
check by a human before you arrived. The uploader got a message but didn't
correct it.

For more info about Orgullobot, see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Orgullobot
*Collects newly uploaded files from Special:Newimages, waits two hours, and
if by then it is obviously not properly tagged, marks it as such and
requests that the user who uploaded it clarify its copyright status.

Now, i have set the image information.

Platonides



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

Re: intelligence in flagging

Tim 'avatar' Bartel
In reply to this post by peter green-2
Hi,

peter green schrieb am 10.07.2006 23:48:
> 4: perform a check usage (we really need a proper check usage tool that
> checks all wikis without causing huge server load) and deal with (at least
> remove and if possible replace) any usage of the image.

For the first half of the sentence, we have this:
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/WikiSense/CheckUsage.php

The problem is that the en-wp is broken and have to be checked by hand.
Hopefully this will be fixed soon.

Bye, Tim.

--
PCMCIA?
People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms?
-> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>


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

signature.asc (558 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intelligence in flagging

Siebrand Mazeland
In reply to this post by Platonides
On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for
correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an
admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin
chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home
wiki(s).

It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to
notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate
users where needed.

Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information
regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.

Cheers!

Siebrand

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: [hidden email]
[mailto:[hidden email]] Namens Platonides
Verzonden: dinsdag 11 juli 2006 13:00
Aan: [hidden email]
Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging


"stevertigo" wrote:
> This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation,
> and sadly a lack of intelligence,

Yes, you're right. That image was automatically flagged as no-license by
Orgullobot, so there's automation and bots are not very intelligent ;-)

The good notice is that nobody lost time flagging it, maybe it wasn't even
check by a human before you arrived. The uploader got a message but didn't
correct it.

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

Re: intelligence in flagging

stevertigo
Its not an issue of determining responsibility. Its an issue of efficiency, as it is
more efficient to read the image for information.

S

--- Siebrand Mazeland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for
> correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an
> admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin
> chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home
> wiki(s).
>
> It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to
> notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate
> users where needed.
>
> Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information
> regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Siebrand
>
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] Namens Platonides
> Verzonden: dinsdag 11 juli 2006 13:00
> Aan: [hidden email]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
>
>
> "stevertigo" wrote:
> > This presents itself as a problem as Ive noticed a certain automation,
> > and sadly a lack of intelligence,
>
> Yes, you're right. That image was automatically flagged as no-license by
> Orgullobot, so there's automation and bots are not very intelligent ;-)
>
> The good notice is that nobody lost time flagging it, maybe it wasn't even
> check by a human before you arrived. The uploader got a message but didn't
> correct it.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intelligence in flagging

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Siebrand Mazeland
On 7/11/06, Siebrand Mazeland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for
> correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an
> admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin
> chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home
> wiki(s).
>
> It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to
> notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate
> users where needed.
>
> Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information
> regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
>
In my opinion the way to go would be to use common sense.  If an image
description says it's a crop of another image, looking at that image
description would be a common sense thing to do.

Of course, if common sense isn't required, and any image without a tag
is immediately deletable without any further checks, then images
shouldn't be allowed to be uploaded without tags in the first place.

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

Re: intelligence in flagging

Oldak
It does seem a little silly that people can upload images without a license tag. This functionality could easily be added - perhaps any upload without a tag selected from the drop down or an appropriate template in the summary should not be able to be uploaded.

It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly easy for us in the case of old photographs).

On 11/07/06, Anthony <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 7/11/06, Siebrand Mazeland <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On a more general note: in my opinion an uploader is ALWAYS responsible for
> correct and complete license and source information. It is not a duty for an
> admin to go and get it when either is missing, nor should the Commons admin
> chase al around the Wikimedia landscape to notify an uploader on his home
> wiki(s).
>
> It is the responsibility of admins to ensure no policy violations occur, to
> notify users of possible violations and/or missing information and educate
> users where needed.
>
> Requiring admins to follow each and every link in search for information
> regarding an image is definately not the way to go, in my opinion.
>
In my opinion the way to go would be to use common sense.  If an image
description says it's a crop of another image, looking at that image
description would be a common sense thing to do.

Of course, if common sense isn't required, and any image without a tag
is immediately deletable without any further checks, then images
shouldn't be allowed to be uploaded without tags in the first place.

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



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

Re: intelligence in flagging

peter green-2
>It does seem a little silly that people can upload images without a license tag.
>This functionality could easily be added - perhaps any upload without a tag
>selected from the drop down or an appropriate template in the summary should
>not be able to be uploaded.
at first that sounds like a nice idea but it has two problems.

1: very often for large groups of images from the same (particularlly PD) source a new tag is created both to save the uploader time and to provide a usefull sorting of such images. Any mechanism like this would put a lot of beuracry in the

2: we will most likely end up with a lot of people picking tags at random which is a much harder behaviour to deal with than people not tagging at all.

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

Re: intelligence in flagging

Oldak
These two points seem very clear now that you mention them. I can't really see a compromise between my proposal and the situations you mention. Such is brainstorming!

On 11/07/06, peter green <[hidden email]> wrote:
>It does seem a little silly that people can upload images without a license tag.
>This functionality could easily be added - perhaps any upload without a tag
>selected from the drop down or an appropriate template in the summary should
>not be able to be uploaded.
at first that sounds like a nice idea but it has two problems.

1: very often for large groups of images from the same (particularlly PD) source a new tag is created both to save the uploader time and to provide a usefull sorting of such images. Any mechanism like this would put a lot of beuracry in the

2: we will most likely end up with a lot of people picking tags at random which is a much harder behaviour to deal with than people not tagging at all.

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



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

Radical proposal

stevertigo
In reply to this post by peter green-2
Crossposted to
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal

Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not
require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article
pages function as if they were a category?  
It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of
dynamic likage (ie. categories).

"Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would
seem to defy convention.
Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages,
or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.


Steven

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: intelligence in flagging

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Oldak
On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the
> license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly easy
> for us in the case of old photographs).

1 in maybe 100 would be such nice cases, the other 99 would be
explaining that random stuff off the web is copyrighted. I would
prefer people find out the license BEFORE uploading. It would save a
lot of work. We have a [[commons:Help desk|]] for this purpose.

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

Re: intelligence in flagging

Niels Fledderus
For more experienced users not selecting a licence is actually easier if you
know exactly which template to use, because you can prepare the complete
description page in the upload form, without having to move the category to
the bottom or correcting a too generic tag afterwards. A show preview button
whould be nice though.

Although I agree with Brianna/pfctdayelise that people should look into
licenses before uploading, I think having a "I don't know option" is
preferable over people just randomly picking a license. When just 1 in 100
people is honest so be it, but that at least makes it obvious that more
attention is needed. Too many people just slap on a license without thinking
or take things too easily for granted, see the World Cup images from Flickr
which are obviously copyvio's.

~~~~ (hmppf, doesn't work ;-)). NielsF


>From: "Brianna Laugher" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <[hidden email]>
>To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: [Commons-l] intelligence in flagging
>Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 09:58:27 +1000
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Received: from mail.wikimedia.org ([207.142.131.221]) by
>bay0-mc11-f9.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Tue,
>11 Jul 2006 16:58:30 -0700
>Received: from [10.0.0.9] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by
>mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073C218F9AF;Tue, 11 Jul 2006
>23:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
>Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com
>[66.249.92.172])by mail.wikimedia.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id
>BAC8F1856CFfor <[hidden email]>; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 23:58:27 +0000
>(UTC)
>Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so53738ugffor
><[hidden email]>; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by 10.78.136.7 with SMTP id j7mr43710hud;Tue, 11 Jul 2006
>16:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: by 10.78.150.13 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
>X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3V+RpxXTk3VdTi4sVGjal2P2ofMt1EeiM=
>X-Original-To: [hidden email]
>Delivered-To: [hidden email]
>References: <e900bg$7p3$[hidden email]>
><005b01c6a50a$b4b19230$0c00000a@SMLT1><[hidden email]><[hidden email]>
>X-BeenThere: [hidden email]
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.8
>Precedence: list
>List-Id: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l.wikimedia.org>
>List-Unsubscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l>,<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/commons-l>
>List-Post: <mailto:[hidden email]>
>List-Help: <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help>
>List-Subscribe:
><http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l>,<mailto:[hidden email]?subject=subscribe>
>Errors-To: [hidden email]
>Return-Path: [hidden email]
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Jul 2006 23:58:31.0346 (UTC)
>FILETIME=[E961B920:01C6A545]
>
>On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the
> > license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly
>easy
> > for us in the case of old photographs).
>
>1 in maybe 100 would be such nice cases, the other 99 would be
>explaining that random stuff off the web is copyrighted. I would
>prefer people find out the license BEFORE uploading. It would save a
>lot of work. We have a [[commons:Help desk|]] for this purpose.
>
>Brianna
>_______________________________________________
>Commons-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l


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

Re: intelligence in flagging

Anthony DiPierro
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
On 7/11/06, Brianna Laugher <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 12/07/06, Oldak Quill <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It would be nice to still allow people to select "I don't know what the
> > license is" so that those with more experience can help (particularly easy
> > for us in the case of old photographs).
>
> 1 in maybe 100 would be such nice cases, the other 99 would be
> explaining that random stuff off the web is copyrighted. I would
> prefer people find out the license BEFORE uploading. It would save a
> lot of work. We have a [[commons:Help desk|]] for this purpose.
>
Using [[commons:Help desk]] certainly isn't very easy either, though.
And clicking the delete button isn't very much work.

It would be nice if there was some temporary place that people could
upload images which they weren't really sure about.  It could be kept
separate from the other images so articles couldn't include them.  Of
course getting the copyright paranoid group to agree to this is
probably impossible.

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

Re: Radical proposal

Alphax (Wikipedia email)
In reply to this post by stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:

> Crossposted to
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
>
> Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not
> require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article
> pages function as if they were a category?  
> It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of
> dynamic likage (ie. categories).
>
> "Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would
> seem to defy convention.
> Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages,
> or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
>
"Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on
Commons.

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


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

signature.asc (576 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radical proposal

Oldak
I concur. I only use categories, not sure why anyone uses articles.

On 12/07/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> stevertigo wrote:
> > Crossposted to
> > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
> >
> > Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not
> > require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article
> > pages function as if they were a category?
> > It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of
> > dynamic likage (ie. categories).
> >
> > "Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would
> > seem to defy convention.
> > Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages,
> > or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
> >
>
> "Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on
> Commons.
>
> --
> Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
>
>
>


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

Re: Radical proposal

Cary Bass
"Articles" as they exist on Commons are used almost exclusively for gallery
purposes.  It is a preferred method of image display for a large number of
commons users who often prefer the ability to customize image display and
provide image discription that galleries offer.

Cary Bass
Bastique

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]]On Behalf Of Oldak Quill
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:13 AM
> To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Radical proposal
>
>
> I concur. I only use categories, not sure why anyone uses articles.
>
> On 12/07/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > stevertigo wrote:
> > > Crossposted to
> > >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
> > >
> > > Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and
> that articles here do not
> > > require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it
> possible to make article
> > > pages function as if they were a category?
> > > It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage
> (ie. articles) in favor of
> > > dynamic likage (ie. categories).
> > >
> > > "Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace,
> though I agree that would
> > > seem to defy convention.
> > > Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could
> fit into category pages,
> > > or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration
> campaign would be required.
> > >
> >
> > "Articles" as they exist on other Wikimedia projects have no place on
> > Commons.
> >
> > --
> > Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
> > Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
> > "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
> > Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Commons-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Oldak Quill ([hidden email])
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

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

Re: Radical proposal

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by stevertigo
I find it very disappointing that folks here don't find human driven
presentation of content to be valuable.  Will we now be deleting the
commons main page and simply redirecting it to a category?

This will force projects to build their own true gallery pages rather
than build them on commons.  Because of the difficulty of building
truly multilingual things on commons the incentive to avoid working on
commons already exists... this will just increase it further. :(



On 7/11/06, stevertigo <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Crossposted to
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Radical_proposal
>
> Since sorting images seems to be a categorical affair, and that articles here do not
> require much in the way of articles or descriptions, is it possible to make article
> pages function as if they were a category?
> It would save some typing, and reduce use of static linkage (ie. articles) in favor of
> dynamic likage (ie. categories).
>
> "Articles" in turn would require fitting into a namespace, though I agree that would
> seem to defy convention.
> Again, this idea is based on the notion that everything could fit into category pages,
> or commons: pages, and little else. A migration/integration campaign would be required.
>
>
> Steven
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Radical proposal

Brianna Laugher
On 13/07/06, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I find it very disappointing that folks here don't find human driven
> presentation of content to be valuable.  Will we now be deleting the
> commons main page and simply redirecting it to a category?
>
> This will force projects to build their own true gallery pages rather
> than build them on commons.  Because of the difficulty of building
> truly multilingual things on commons the incentive to avoid working on
> commons already exists... this will just increase it further. :(

I wouldn't worry too much. I expect... um... MS Windows to be released
under the GPL before an implementable solution to this problem is
found.

As I said on the Village pump, anyone who is seriously thinking of
implementing some new solution absolutely must make the system
multilingual. That challenge should be enough to keep anyone busy
until the Microsoft-FSF alliance.

Brianna
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
12