some statistics

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

some statistics

Brianna Laugher
I counted these by hand, so there could be mistakes.

[[Category:against policy]] has nearly 1000 items. These are items
that should be speedy deleted as obvious copyright violations.
Literally, these are supposed to be deleted on sight.

[[Category:Unknown - March 2006]] has over 1000 items. These are items
that were tagged as missing source information in March. They should
be speedy deleted after 7 days.

[[Category:Unknown - April 2006]] has around 1400 items.

[[Category:Unknown - May 2006]] has an astounding 2600-2800 items for
deletion. (You know you're in trouble when you count "1000" and the
file names are still at "D")

[[Category:Unknown - June 2006]] has something incredible like over
4000 items for deletion...and it's only June 9th!!!
OK actually all the categories 1 June - 8 June have less than 200
items each, so something weird is going on. I don't know where all
those extra items are coming from. Hm it looks like some are people
misusing the 'Unknown' template and they somehow get added to the
current month. Ah... yes, that is it.

[[Category:Incomplete license]] has about 400 items. (For some, their
7 days might not have expired yet.)

[[Category:Images with no copyright tag]] has about 500 items. I think
this is all Orgullobot's work (only recently had a bot tag all new
uploads with this tag if there's no license tag).

[[Category:Duplicate]] has about 800 items. These are non-essential deletion.

[[Template:Delete] links to some 2000 items (although some of those
are policy pages, for example). But even then I think there must be a
gap between that template and [[Commons:Deletion requests]].

Just at a rough guess, there are probably about 200 items listed on
[[Commons:Deletion requests]]. And these are supposed to be deletions
requiring discussion (and for some reason today I see another 43 (!)
"delete this because there's an SVG" nominations just from one user :/
). These are supposed to be important cases that can set precedents.
How can admins even find these debates let alone take part in them?
This page (the template) is 247kb. No wonder <10 admins (of over 130)
regularly look at it.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say, it doesn't matter how many
admins we have, or how hard they work, we cannot realistically reduce
this backlog by using the current methods we follow.

On the 8th June less than 250 items were deleted (including categories
and articles, etc). Same on the 7th June.

....................................
?????????????????????
....................................

Is this something we should not worry about?
Or how can we ever solve it? Over 12,000 images waiting to be deleted.

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

Re: some statistics

Matthew Brown-5
I'm not so sure that any one person's efforts can make THAT much of a
difference, but I'll be happy to help with the deletion backlog.

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

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Solution A:
Increase the number of admins, which will increase the number of deletions.

Solution B:
Have a bot automatically delete files in certain categories that have
been there since X days.

Solution C:
I would expect that most problematic uploads come from new users.
Disable the creation of new users (or their ability to upload) while the
total backlog is >X files (no pun intended). Have a messaage displayed
prominently to put social pressure on the admins ;-)

(disclaimer: I am not an admin on commons)

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
On 09/06/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Solution A:
> Increase the number of admins, which will increase the number of deletions.

Probably not enough to have a big impact any time soon, and if we were
to increase the numbers so that it did, it would be dangerous. And
also we don't even have the interested candidates to nominate, so...

> Solution B:
> Have a bot automatically delete files in certain categories that have
> been there since X days.

Could be possible for the category that is only used by Orgullobot,
but you wouldn't want to use it for most categories as people can (and
do) tag things maliciously or mistakenly. Manual checking is required
IMO. Sad but true.

Also I don't think anyone would be too happy with a bot that had admin
powers, doesn't seem to go down well. You could have an admin run a
daily script though, I guess. Their talk page would probably be a
world of pain as redlinks jumped up in X wikis. CommonsTicker wouldn't
help except for images tagged in the last couple of weeks.

> Solution C:
> I would expect that most problematic uploads come from new users.
> Disable the creation of new users (or their ability to upload) while the
> total backlog is >X files (no pun intended). Have a messaage displayed
> prominently to put social pressure on the admins ;-)

What do you mean, social pressure? To encourage them to delete stuff?

You are right that most problematic uploads come from newbies (or
oldbies no one has caught yet - there are many of those :( ).

Yet we now have automatic welcoming of all new active accounts, and
automatic logging of those accounts (
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Orgullobot/Welcome_log ). And
we can't even muster up enough people to check these - a week and
there is already a backlog. You don't even have to be an admin to do
this.

Disabling newbie uploads is one idea, or forcing them to pass some
kind of copyright test. But there would be such backlash we could
never do it, plus there's always too many exceptions, different
languages...it's a nightmare. Also someone might be new to the Commons
but well familiar with copyright issues from Wikipedia or similar.

Any more ideas?

I could be happy for Jimbo to run through these with a razor, at least
it will save the Commons from criticism were I to do the same thing :)

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

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
>
> Any more ideas?
>  
Always ;-)

How about a tool (outside commons, maybe on the toolserver) that finds
(supposedly) evil-tagged images that have not been touched for the
mandatory seven-days period (and the talk page hasn't been touched
either). All images on the tool page would meet the condition "these can
be deleted, unless it is obvious to a human that they shouldn't".

The page could display the (thumbnailed) image, the text, maybe also the
date(s) involved, and a "delete" button which will open the delete page
on commons, prefilled (assuimg you're logged in as admin). Maybe it
could be tied into the CommonsTicker somehow, to show "this image is
currently in use on en and de".

This might increase the speed of decision making and execution (!)
significantly. A "disassembly line" for admins, so to speak.

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

Re: some statistics

Essjay
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
Magnus Manske wrote:
> Solution A:
> Increase the number of admins, which will increase the number of deletions.
>  
True, but also increases the number of controversial deletions; on a
normal project, any time you delete something, you risk being yelled at
by the people on that project. On Commons, you risk being yelled at by
everybody involved with Wikimedia. That's a lot of pressure to put on
someone, especially when they can't easily leave a "Hey, I noticed
[image] seems to need deletion, but you're using it" message (because we
have hundreds of languages, and nobody can hope to speak them all).
> Solution B:
> Have a bot automatically delete files in certain categories that have
> been there since X days.
>  
The vandals will love this one: "Hey, want to really wreak havoc? Go
start tagging images with this category. Do it to images with
descriptions in small languages, where there's not likely to be anyone
who can tell you're actually vandalizing, or anyone watching the image
to know to untag it. Even better if you do it to a hundred at a time;
they'll assume you're a good contributor, and won't eve ask you
questions! Then, this bot will come along and delete it for you, and
they won't be able to get it back!"
> Solution C:
> I would expect that most problematic uploads come from new users.
> Disable the creation of new users (or their ability to upload) while the
> total backlog is >X files (no pun intended).
Mmmm, DOS opportunity from the same vandals: Tag all kinds of images, no
matter what they are, with deletion notices, it will stop new user
creation [or uploads by new users] until they can get it back down.
Don't worry, even if they revert you, you'll still DOS them for a while,
waste thier time, and by the time they've caught you and started
reverting, you'll have another account and be doing it again!
> Have a messaage displayed prominently to put social pressure on the admins ;-)
>  
Attention, admins: Quickly, resign adminship, because no matter what
you're doing, you're going to be blamed for the problem! Oh, and note to
vandals: All the admins are resigning, now's the time to hit, because
there's even less of them to stop you!
> (disclaimer: I am not an admin on commons)
>
> Magnus
Now, don't get me wrong, my responses above are comically
over-dramatized to make the point. They're all good ideas (except that
last one, don't blame the admins!), they're just prone to abuse, and
with the language-barriers and lack of staff on Commons, it'd be an open
and waiting target.

I am a Commons admin, and the thing that scares me most about Commons
admin work is deletion: Almost everything on Commons, if deleted, cannot
be recovered, and Commons materials are used on all Wikimedia projects.
There are good tools, like the one that checks usage on other projects,
and I'm glad we have them, but we still have the problem that there is a
major language barrier, and very low participation from projects.

However, the thing that would make me feel most comfortable deleting
would be a way of getting things back. If deleted images could be
recovered, I'd have no problem whatsoever with deleting things in those
categories left and right. And, it solves the problems raised above with
the idea of deleting by bot: As long as we know we can get it back, why not?

I'm sure that the reason images aren't recoverable is an issue of space:
We don't have the server space to store tens of thousands of images that
were deemed unwanted. Likewise, we don't want to be holding on to copies
of images that could get us in trouble, like copyvios. However, it would
be incredibly useful to be able to restore an image that shouldn't have
been deleted. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to hold on to deleted
images for a period of time, and to then have them be automatically
purged. Though I've never gone to a deleted page and been unable to
restore content, I'm told that it is possible for very old deleted pages
to be purged off entirely, so I wonder if something similar couldnt' be
done for images.

It seems to me that an image being deleted is something you would
probably notice right away (at least within, say, 7 days) if the image
was really important; would it be possible to make it so that deleted
images were kept for 7 days, an then purged after that? Even if it was
only done on Commons (and it strikes me, it would be a feature that
other wikis would want as well, to deal with the possibility of a
compromised/rouge admin account) it would help tremendously, because we
would no longer have to worry about being in hot water if we deleted
something that was mistagged. It might produce a space problem for the
first week, while we were all cutting through the 12,000 image backlog,
but after that, it seems to me the space requirement of just holding on
to things for a week wouldn't be that much. (I'm not a programmer, but
common sense suggests moving an image from a to b doesn't really
increase the amount of space required by the image, it just adds a log
entry, which should be fairly cheap.)

Since we have a developer on the list, thinking about possible solutions
<lays out a carrot under a box to trap Magnus> perhaps he could provide
us with some more information on what would be needed to make this
happen, and perhaps even provide the needed code to make it happen.

I'll pledge, personally, to delete at least 1,000 of the backlogged
images if this is implemented.

Essjay

--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

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

Re: some statistics

Anthony DiPierro
On 6/9/06, Essjay <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I'm sure that the reason images aren't recoverable is an issue of space:
> We don't have the server space to store tens of thousands of images that
> were deemed unwanted. Likewise, we don't want to be holding on to copies
> of images that could get us in trouble, like copyvios.

I'd guess it's more of a historical accident.  Undeletion of images
just wasn't very important during the early years of the project, and
no one got around to implementing it.  There's at least one
enhancement request in bugzilla,
http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2099.

> Since we have a developer on the list, thinking about possible solutions
> <lays out a carrot under a box to trap Magnus> perhaps he could provide
> us with some more information on what would be needed to make this
> happen, and perhaps even provide the needed code to make it happen.
>
> I'll pledge, personally, to delete at least 1,000 of the backlogged
> images if this is implemented.
>
> Essjay

Looking at the bug report, someone else has pledged $50 on top of that :).

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

Re: some statistics

Łukasz Garczewski
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher napisał(a):
> [...] Also someone might be new to the Commons
> but well familiar with copyright issues from Wikipedia or similar.

Single login would take care of this particular issue quite well, I
think. Not to say that turning off newbie uploads is a good idea. Or a
bad one. Carry on. ;)

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Essjay
On 10/06/06, Essjay <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Magnus Manske wrote:
> > Solution A:
> > Increase the number of admins, which will increase the number of deletions.
> >
> True, but also increases the number of controversial deletions; on a
> normal project, any time you delete something, you risk being yelled at
> by the people on that project. On Commons, you risk being yelled at by
> everybody involved with Wikimedia. That's a lot of pressure to put on
> someone, especially when they can't easily leave a "Hey, I noticed
> [image] seems to need deletion, but you're using it" message (because we
> have hundreds of languages, and nobody can hope to speak them all).

Essjay!!!!!!!!!!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pfctdayelise/Translations

Apparently our policies officially say that copyvios (+ maybe NSD/NLD?
I can't remember) can be deleted without removing the image from use.
At least Arnomane and Duesentrieb argue this line and presumably carry
it out. But myself, Fred, Bastique, Angr...don't know who else... we
fear the wrath of 100+ WM projects too much, so we follow this
removing method for all image deletion.

Also: we have at least one functioning "Delinker Bot", but we're not
allowed to use it (even with translated messages) because local
projects get shitty about unregistered/anonymous bots. Can you imagine
registering a bot on some 200 projects?

I hope with the universal login (which was coming "soon" in January,
sigh), we can offer an ultimatum and say, "Let our bot work on your
project or else DEAL with redlinks", because the situation is too
ridiculous.

> I am a Commons admin, and the thing that scares me most about Commons
> admin work is deletion: Almost everything on Commons, if deleted, cannot
> be recovered, and Commons materials are used on all Wikimedia projects.

But think: most of the things that need deleting are random things
that people got off the internet. I figure if they got it off the
internet once, if it's really important, odds are they can go and do
it again, especially if deletion is close to upload date.

And if it's their own work (or they claim it is ;)), then of course
they would have a copy on their own computer. No one would upload
something precious to the Commons and then delete it off their own
computer! Right?

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

Re: some statistics

Essjay
Brianna Laugher wrote:
On 10/06/06, Essjay [hidden email] wrote:
  
Magnus Manske wrote:
    
Solution A:
Increase the number of admins, which will increase the number of deletions.

      
True, but also increases the number of controversial deletions; on a
normal project, any time you delete something, you risk being yelled at
by the people on that project. On Commons, you risk being yelled at by
everybody involved with Wikimedia. That's a lot of pressure to put on
someone, especially when they can't easily leave a "Hey, I noticed
[image] seems to need deletion, but you're using it" message (because we
have hundreds of languages, and nobody can hope to speak them all).
    

Essjay!!!!!!!!!!
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pfctdayelise/Translations

  
I'll have to look at that first thing tomorrow; I'm off to bed right now
Apparently our policies officially say that copyvios (+ maybe NSD/NLD?
I can't remember) can be deleted without removing the image from use.
At least Arnomane and Duesentrieb argue this line and presumably carry
it out. But myself, Fred, Bastique, Angr...don't know who else... we
fear the wrath of 100+ WM projects too much, so we follow this
removing method for all image deletion.

Also: we have at least one functioning "Delinker Bot", but we're not
allowed to use it (even with translated messages) because local
projects get shitty about unregistered/anonymous bots. Can you imagine
registering a bot on some 200 projects?

I hope with the universal login (which was coming "soon" in January,
sigh), we can offer an ultimatum and say, "Let our bot work on your
project or else DEAL with redlinks", because the situation is too
ridiculous.

  
See? This is what I was talking about. Everybody wants to benefit, but nobody wants to accept the responsibility that comes with using what we offer. If you're going to use Commons images, you've got to accept that you're using something under a different set of policies, with a different set of procedures, and adjust to that. Unfortunately, most projects wont.

  
I am a Commons admin, and the thing that scares me most about Commons
admin work is deletion: Almost everything on Commons, if deleted, cannot
be recovered, and Commons materials are used on all Wikimedia projects.
    

But think: most of the things that need deleting are random things
that people got off the internet. I figure if they got it off the
internet once, if it's really important, odds are they can go and do
it again, especially if deletion is close to upload date.

And if it's their own work (or they claim it is ;)), then of course
they would have a copy on their own computer. No one would upload
something precious to the Commons and then delete it off their own
computer! Right?

  
You're more optimistic than I am; it would not surprise me for a second to hear "I uploaded it here, so why keep it!" And when someone is screaming at a Commons admin for deleting an image in process, they're probably not in a place where a rational argument like "You didn't follow process" is going to work.

I still think the best thing to have would be a way to recover deleted images for a short period of time.

Essjay

-- 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay
Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia
http://www.wikipedia.org/

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
Essjay:
>  See? This is what I was talking about. Everybody wants to benefit, but
> nobody wants to accept the responsibility that comes with using what we
> offer. If you're going to use Commons images, you've got to accept that
> you're using something under a different set of policies, with a different
> set of procedures, and adjust to that. Unfortunately, most projects wont.

Hm, I disagree that it is a different set of policies. It is just what
the policy should be on all Wikimedia projects, if we want to be
serious about avoiding copyvios and creating reliable, truly free
content. There are not that many projects that allow fair use so for
most projects I would guess the policies should be the same.

Different procedures, yes, they vary wildly from wiki to wiki (and I
would rather use ours than en.wp's any day of the week... but I am
biased :)) so it would be pretty much impossible for that to be
standard. Nothing unusual though, I don't think; templates, warnings,
7 days notice, etc.

>  I still think the best thing to have would be a way to recover deleted
> images for a short period of time.

Well, possibly, but arguing about the best process rarely (sorry,
NEVER) translates into the technical solutions required. You can argue
again on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2099 if you
like.

For a comprehensive list of how technical issues impact on the
Commons, you may like to visit
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bugs :)

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

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Essjay
Essjay wrote:
<snip> lots of replys</snip>
I am aware that none of my "solutions" is perfect, but I'm sure they
could be useful. People might be more sympathetic for admins deleting
files if "the system" prevents new uploads until the backlog of bad old
ones is cleared up. Likewise, once the backlog is down considerably, an
automativ deletion after X days would be reasonable. If the backlog
grows (vandals), it could pause. Etc.

> I am a Commons admin, and the thing that scares me most about Commons
> admin work is deletion: Almost everything on Commons, if deleted, cannot
> be recovered, and Commons materials are used on all Wikimedia projects.
> There are good tools, like the one that checks usage on other projects,
> and I'm glad we have them, but we still have the problem that there is a
> major language barrier, and very low participation from projects.
>
> However, the thing that would make me feel most comfortable deleting
> would be a way of getting things back. If deleted images could be
> recovered, I'd have no problem whatsoever with deleting things in those
> categories left and right. And, it solves the problems raised above with
> the idea of deleting by bot: As long as we know we can get it back, why not?
>  
Is there a rule that says this has to be done *inside* the commons? The
images are accessible from everywhere, so deleted images could be copied
to other places prior to deletion. The toolserver might be a suitable
place, or we could even go for a distributed solution that uses the
toolserver as an organizing hub. Similar to the recycle bin on Desktops,
old deleted images (where noone complained about the deletion) could be
deleted permanently if space gets low. Images would not be accessible
for the public, so no problem arises for copyvios.

I'd be willing to code that. Note that this deletion would require going
through a script on the toolserver (to copy the image), which would then
invoke the coimmons deletion form.

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

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
OK, working example for safely deleting images on the commons:

http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/safe_delete_commons.php?title=Image:THE_IMAGE_NAME.SOMETYPE

It will
* Check the image text for last edit older than 14 days (can be adapted
if necessary)
* Check the image text for "delete me" templates; list of templates has
to be expanded, please tell me which to use

If all that is OK, it will
* Copy the image to the toolserver under a randomized name
* Give the randomized name for you to copy, so the image can be restored
* Generate a button that leads to page deletion (I'm not a commons
admin, so someone please check if that's working)
* Give a preview of the existing and copied image to check that copying
was successful

The deleting admin *has* to copy the new image url line, otherwise the
image can never be found again! That way, the image is stored away from
public eyes but still restorable through the deleting admin.

Comments, please.

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
I tried it on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alcib%C3%ADades.jpg.
Note the weird character in the filename.

>Image:Alcib�ades.jpg is now stored as
>http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commons_images/6ae2eda2d5.jpg
>
>You should copy the above line into a file on your local machine, as
it is the only way to recover the file at a later date!
>Delete file on commons
>The image below should be identical to the one in the upper right
corner. If not, copying was unsuccessful, and you should not delete
the file on the commons!

Neither of the images would load so I couldn't check if this was true.

OK, let's try one without a tricky name: Image:Barrett.jpg

Last edited 78 days ago... bingo!

The delete link worked fine.

OK, interesting.

> * Check the image text for "delete me" templates; list of templates has
> to be expanded, please tell me which to use

which ones do you have so far?

> The deleting admin *has* to copy the new image url line, otherwise the
> image can never be found again! That way, the image is stored away from
> public eyes but still restorable through the deleting admin.

I think instead it should make an edit to the image page saying
"BACK-UP COPY AT (url)". Because the image is about to be deleted
anyway. If time proves the image should be undeleted, you can just
undelete the image page, recover the URL and go from there. That seems
much easier than storing the URL on my local machine for example. It
would also save one manual step ;)

Also...maybe this will encourage admins to delete more stuff, which
would be good. But IMO they have no reason for hesitation where the
image is unsourced for a long time and the uploader was notified. No
hesitation at all. I personally would only use this for images where
the case was contested, such as Deletion requests. So not that many
cases overall. But if it helps admins feel more secure to go on
deletion sprees of unsourced stuff then I support it. :)

I didn't get one that was actually used, though, so I'm not sure what
the check-usage part of the interface will look like.

Do TPTB approve of this use of the toolserver? If commons admins get
into it, it seems like it could be reasonably intensive...

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
Also, would it be possible to get a list of all images in
[[Category:Unknown - June 2006]] that have not been edited since
before June (these would be the images with malformed/depreciated
'unknown' tags)... and that are not used on any projects? (I will
check en.wp by hand for the moment :/ )

Note that that category has 6000+-200 entries. (I just recounted it.)

I know I'm not the only admin that would do a lot more deleting if
there was an easy way to check which ones were "easier" (non-easy =
having to remove from use). And when you delete an image that no one's
using, you're far less likely to incite angry mobs :)

They're still not easy because half the time the tag is wrong, or the
uploader was never notified or something stupid... but they're easIER.

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
Also (I am really warming up to this :)), it would be good to be able
to override the "last edit 14 days ago" thing when necessary. For
example when I see logos labelled *-self, I have a strong prejudice
not to believe this and to delete on sight. If I could delete on sight
with a backup handy just in the odd occasion ;) I'm wrong, it would be
incredibly handy to calm the screaming hordes down.

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

Re: some statistics

Brianna Laugher
In reply to this post by Magnus Manske
On 09/06/06, Magnus Manske <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Solution C:
> I would expect that most problematic uploads come from new users.
> Disable the creation of new users (or their ability to upload) while the
> total backlog is >X files (no pun intended).

I was thinking about this. What could work quite well, is if we had
reviewed uploads. So you upload your first five files. Then you can't
upload any more files until an admin reviews your uploads. Users stay
in 'review mode' until they can upload 5 files in row without
copyright concerns. If they upload 5 images fine then they can go into
'free mode', or 'unreviewed mode', or whatever you want to call it,
which is what we have at the moment. It would also be great to be able
to put users back INTO review mode!! Especially since we can't ban
people from uploading only (bugzilla:4995), which is a great shame.
This would be a good alternative.

This would be super nifty. Like all super nifty ideas, it's probably
quite hard to solve technically, otherwise someone would've done it by
now. :)

The only bad point is that it might lead people to create a new
account every 5 images. Might not matter that much though...

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

Re: some statistics

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

> I tried it on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alcib%C3%ADades.jpg.
> Note the weird character in the filename.
>
>> Image:Alcib�ades.jpg is now stored as
>> http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commons_images/6ae2eda2d5.jpg
>>
>> You should copy the above line into a file on your local machine, as
> it is the only way to recover the file at a later date!
>> Delete file on commons
>> The image below should be identical to the one in the upper right
> corner. If not, copying was unsuccessful, and you should not delete
> the file on the commons!
>
> Neither of the images would load so I couldn't check if this was true.
>
> OK, let's try one without a tricky name: Image:Barrett.jpg
>
> Last edited 78 days ago... bingo!
>
> The delete link worked fine.
>
> OK, interesting.
>
>> * Check the image text for "delete me" templates; list of templates has
>> to be expanded, please tell me which to use
>
> which ones do you have so far?
>
>> The deleting admin *has* to copy the new image url line, otherwise the
>> image can never be found again! That way, the image is stored away from
>> public eyes but still restorable through the deleting admin.
>
> I think instead it should make an edit to the image page saying
> "BACK-UP COPY AT (url)". Because the image is about to be deleted
> anyway. If time proves the image should be undeleted, you can just
> undelete the image page, recover the URL and go from there. That seems
> much easier than storing the URL on my local machine for example. It
> would also save one manual step ;)
>
Agreed. That way we wouldn't have to worry about where the backup of
each image is stored...

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


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

signature.asc (581 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> I tried it on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Alcib%C3%ADades.jpg.
> Note the weird character in the filename.
>  
The reason for this not working /may/ be that there's a text, but no
image to copy ;-)

Anyway, that error is now caught and shown.
>
>> * Check the image text for "delete me" templates; list of templates has
>> to be expanded, please tell me which to use
>>    
>
> which ones do you have so far?
>  
You can see the current list by clicking on "source of this script"
(even if you don't speak code;-)

>  
>> The deleting admin *has* to copy the new image url line, otherwise the
>> image can never be found again! That way, the image is stored away from
>> public eyes but still restorable through the deleting admin.
>>    
>
> I think instead it should make an edit to the image page saying
> "BACK-UP COPY AT (url)". Because the image is about to be deleted
> anyway. If time proves the image should be undeleted, you can just
> undelete the image page, recover the URL and go from there. That seems
> much easier than storing the URL on my local machine for example. It
> would also save one manual step ;)
>  
I added a button which will open the edit page and append that message
(also fill in the summary). You'll have to click it (and "Save")
manually, though...

> I didn't get one that was actually used, though, so I'm not sure what
> the check-usage part of the interface will look like.
>  
One line for each wikimedia project that uses the image; in this line,
project name, how many articles, talk pages, project pages, etc. use it
For details (which pages actually use the image), click on "details" ;-)
> Do TPTB approve of this use of the toolserver? If commons admins get
> into it, it seems like it could be reasonably intensive...
>  
I posted it on toolserver-l, and so far, noone complained. Tim Starling
made a good suggestion; I'll talk to him about this.

At some point, I'll have to really delete these images, no matter the
disk space available. I'd assume it's safe to /really/ delete them if
they were not resurrected within three month or so.

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

Re: some statistics

Magnus Manske
In reply to this post by Brianna Laugher
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
> Also (I am really warming up to this :)), it would be good to be able
> to override the "last edit 14 days ago" thing when necessary. For
> example when I see logos labelled *-self, I have a strong prejudice
> not to believe this and to delete on sight. If I could delete on sight
> with a backup handy just in the odd occasion ;) I'm wrong, it would be
> incredibly handy to calm the screaming hordes down.
>  
manually add "&days=7" to the URL for 7 days etc.

Magnus
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
[hidden email]
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
123