On 9/27/07, Brock Weller <brock.weller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> But i don't use it on the pedia. Because it's not allowed.
> That's the rules as they are now. You know this, i know this.
It isn't against the rules to use open proxies with English Wikipedia,
nor even against them to edit from open proxies. Rather, the standing
and well justified practice is to block them when we find them because
they are used for trouble.
The distinction is subtle but important.
If there existed an open proxy which was an attractive tool for abuse
we wouldn't block it. No such beast exists yet, but they are possible.
For example, http://www.lunkwill.org/src/nym/Readme proposes a system
which would allow us to give people tokens whenever they donate over a
threshold amount to us or perhaps other participating non-profits. The
token could be used to enable tor editing from a single account. This
way creating vandal accounts would cost $25 (or whatever) each.
Probably a reasonable enough solution, and the pseudoanomity of the
user is strongly preserved.
Or another example,
http://petworkshop.org/2007/papers/PET2007_preproc_Nymble.pdf uses
many of the same cryptographic constructs as above but creates a
system where we could block IPs without ever being able to tell
exactly what they were.
Now that armedblowfish is rate limited perhaps he'll have some time to
work on developing the software needed to make one these into
reasonable options.
> But
> regardless, this is being dragged off topic.
If it's that off-topic then don't reply on list. ;)
> ... Spectators can be blurred beyond
> recognition...with photoshop...make
> bystanders...look "incidentally out of
> focus" rather than "deliberately
> anonymized"...
> ...When using a good camera, the
> bigger the aperture (the smaller the
> f-number) the smaller the depth of
> focus. This also increases the
> amount of light hitting the film,
> meaning you can speed up the
> shutter speed...
Film? Hahahahah! And ... adjustable settings on little tiny digital
cell phone camera chips and their little tiny lenses? Hahahahah!
"Good" is in the eye of the beholder, and on Wikipedia, the kind of
images presented as fair use are barely 100 pixels in either dimension -
about equal to 0.01 megapixels! ANY camera captures w-a-y more than
that, and uploading ~100x pixel copies (even of other people's photos)
as fair use reference images probably would pass muster in an
encyclopedia. Does anyone know of any case law in this new field?
Regarding the presumption that cell phones aren't going to be a useful
source of images, that's just blind to reality. Cell phones are just as
"serious" image capture devices as any other camera. They have arrived:
see National Geographic's "The Camera Phone Book" at
http://shop.nationalgeographic.com/product/175/3690/122.html "... the
book explains how to choose good equipment; take better pictures; and
store, print, and send the best images...Featuring the technical savvy
of CNet.com's Aimee Baldridge and the creative skill of National
Geographic photographer Robert Clark, a camera phone pioneer, this
compact yet comprehensive reference combines up-to-the-minute expertise
with superb examples...this generously illustrated nuts-and-bolts guide
is the first of its kind to treat these units as genuine cameras instead
of novelties, and the only one to include a full-color photo-essay
demonstrating the full capabilities of the latest camera
phones...2007..."
PS - Off Topic - the smaller the image capture size, the greater the
depth of field focus. The beauty of the cell phone camera is that it's
so small that everything is in focus near to far all the time - lens
aperture settings are pretty much meaningless and inaccessible. As they
say, "take the picture now, you can always fix it in photoshop later!"
Photoshop legit copies start ~$5US for older version on eBay and there
are many free programs that offer tools to accomplish cropping,
resizing, sharpening, blurring and other image tweaks functions.
On 9/25/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 25/09/2007, Armed Blowfish <diodontida.armata(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 25/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > > Yeah. The image interface in general really sucks, I believe we have a
> > > usability report to hand that details how it sucks, so if there's any
> > > coders with a good feel for UI who are keen on making things easier
> > > then they should hop onto wikitech-l and #wikimedia-tech for a chat
> > > with the devs.
>
> > Link?
>
>
> On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability , I
> believe it's one of the two PDFs linked at the bottom.
>
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Usability/Test_Februar_2…
>
> is on de:wp, but is in English. I think this is the report in
> question.
>
> There's lots and lots of things wrong other than the image interface, of
> course.
>
> Wwwolf has a page here too:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wwwwolf/MediaWiki_Usability
Ah, thanks! I didn't know about these.
There's also http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability which could stand some
updating.
The pdf link you mention seems to be broken though :( -- does anyone know if
the .pdf report was the same as what's posted at de:?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProjekt_Usability/Test_Februar_2…
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Usability>Does anyone have a copy of the
pdf?
I still think it'd be worth getting another outside usability assessment*;
it looks like the German report was likely based on an old version of the
de: upload page, which is pretty different from the giant pages full o'
instructions that we have on en: now.
-- phoebe
* hopefully from someone with a clue about licenses!
> Earlier: "...Somewhere or another,
> we may even have touched on an
> encyclopedia for more than three
> messages at a time..."
>> Earlier: "... I'd never have posted
>> here if I weren't banned from
>> complaining to OTRS on threat
>> of AN/I..."
Wow - one of my many, may points about the perils of having a banning
tool in the first place - we end up endlessly arguing aver banning
rather than dealing with the content of the problem.
Banning is bad for ... do we need a list?
It always ends up with this:
Banning is bad for the person who bans.
"...more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative
peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the
presence of justice..." -- MLKJr
If not here, where?
I just noticed an attempt going on to delete a freely licensed Kelly
Clarkson concert picture:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:Kell
y-clarkson-live-in-geelong.JPG
The alleged grounds is "no permission from artist, label, or manager
for use, picture was taken at a concert, which may not be used for
such purposes without proper permission".
The deletion seems to be failing though.
Is this yet another hoop some want to toss up in front of image
uploaders, that there not only be a free license on the image
copyright itself, but that proper licenses be obtained from the venue
at which the picture was taken, and all people depicted in the image,
and the promoters of whatever event the picture was taken during?
Will it be necessary to include copies of the fine print in a concert
or other event ticket or program to prove whether photography was
allowed?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
>> ...Doesn't even the US have
>> restrictions on journalism?...
> ...A photograph of an individual
> in a public place is by definition
> not private information. What
> occurs in public is public...
Nobody understands the US.
The "US" is, literally "us", as in "we", as in "we, the people".
The "government has no powers of it's own except the powers it receives
from "we the people".
And, "we, the people" put our concerns right up front in the Bill of
Rights:
"...congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press..."
Period. "...no law..." End of story.
> ...Perhaps something along the
> lines of proving that revealing
> information on a private figure
> is 'in the public interest'?..
Got that backwards - that's concerning "we the people", the public,
having the right private information, not trying to make public
information private!
And, what exactly is a "private figure" anyway?
Now here's a rarity: a well-written, informative, interesting, and
scrupulously sourced article...
...on a primary school which only opened six years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanjong_Katong_Primary_School
A nice existence proof that it can be done!
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
I'm working at home this week, which means I get the small child on my
arm. This leaves the other arm free to use AutoWikiBrowser! So I've
been going through [[Category:Living people]] and adding
[[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] or [[Image:Replace this
image female.svg|right]] to every article that doesn't have an image
or at least the word "image" in it.
Anyone else want to help? Our living bios are overwhelmingly male, so
I glance over the text in the edit box and (as needed) paste
[[Image:Replace this image male.svg|right]] in, and add "fe" if the
subject is female.
That thing is durned ugly, but already has people finding suitable
images on Commons or other Wikipedias, and based on past experience
will net us more than a few free content photos we didn't have before.
I might replace the current SVGs with some of the less ugly ones
mooted in the Village Pump thread as well ...
- d.
James Hansen, NASA's chief global warming scientist, has recently come
under press and blog criticism for supposedly warning about global
cooling in a 1971 Washington Post article. Yesterday I uploaded a
scan of the article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hansen_Wash_Post.pdf) so the
actual facts could be discussed on the article talk page. (I believe
the recent coverage misrepresented Hansen's role as explained in the
article.) Even though I uploaded it with a Fair Use rationale, the
image police tagged it for deletion as a copyright violation.
I think this use of a copyrighted source, to inform discussion of the
topic on the article talk page, is closer to the spirit and intent of
the fair use doctrine than decorating articles with screenshots and
album covers. One purpose of the Fair Use exemption is to allow the
free exchange of ideas and information in scholarly discussion, and to
insist, in this case, that each editor interested in this article must
individually pay the Post for a copy, or find a library with the right
back issue, in order to participate, seems harmful to the project.
(When the Washington Times has a current article saying one thing,
the only way to show what the original article said is to either post
it or transcribe it, which is the same thing for copyright purposes.)
I have done this several times before, to allow informed discussion
of a disputed source on the talk page or on an AfD discussion.
However, there is no mention of this form of Fair Use on
[[Wikipedia:Non-free content]]. I'm curious about your reaction to
this, and whether some discussion of acceptable use of non-free
content on talk pages should be included.
Thatcher131
> > > ...To set the maximum width
> > > for the content, put html
{ max-width:1280px; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto }
> > > in your monobook.css (adapt
> > > "1280px" to the width you like
> > to keep it working normally on
> > smaller screens)...
> ...But aren't there inferior popular
> browsers that fail to support the
> 'max-width' attribute? ... It would
> be better to use a relative
> measurement such as em instead
> of px, to allow for it to rescale if
> the font size is adjusted by user
> preference. Otherwise, you can
> have a situation where somebody
> sets their normal text to a large
> size (due to poor vision or an
> extremely high resolution monitor
> where pixels are very small) and
> still ends up with it crammed into
> a fixed-pixel-width canvas...
I just adjust my browser window to ~40 characters across for easy
reading, or I print it out and read off line. I've also browsed through
Adobe Acrobat (writer) and read on screen or on paper. There are
options, and maybe we need a page to remind people what are their
viewing adjustment options. At Wikipedia, [[help:____]] there are only
2 articles with the word "display" or "font", 1 with "view" or "size",
and NONE with the words "adjust", "screen", "resolution", or "window".
What name should we give an article that tells people how to adjust
their display screen resolution and font and window size for optimum
reading?
I think % is relative regardless; em is un referenced to screen physical
dimensions but should correspond to exact measurements on print output
devices; and px depend on device-controlled physical dimensions that
vary from device to device. Why bother? Everyone's display and system
rendering is different!
Regardless, 508-compliance requires that information on screen not be
dependant on color (hence my preference for traditional underlines
versus red or blue for links), be responsive to user adjustments for
contrast and size, and present themselves to screen readers with
equivalent information for non-sighted users. Have a look at
http://www.section508.gov/ and report back in a few days. Nice "Site
Layout Controls" in the upper right corner, eh? ;-)