>
>Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 13:13:52 +1100
>From: Angela <beesley(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: [Commons-l] Commons greetings cards
>This spun off from a different discussion elsewhere, but I was
>wondering about the possibility of printing Christmas cards based on
>images from Commons. Maybe a partnership with a printing company could
>be made for next year's fundraiser? (I'd buy them!)
>
>Angela
Hi all,
I mentioned several months ago that I was publishing a series of
greeting cards and postcards, of which the postcard series is begun
with 18 in the first run. One photo is used and creditied to Commons
and I have permissions from a couple of Users: to publish their
photography as postcards. I was thinking of using sales to help
support Wikimedia and Wikipedia for those particular ones. As far as
religions etc and not supporting any one particular avenue of thought
and remaining unbiased, I am sure some disclaimer or wording can be
put on the cards that would please the masses and the nay sayers. Hey
? Commons Sense Cards, now there's a name.
Wayne Ray
http://www.pineight.com/rant/captcha/
Commons is listed under "confusing examples":
Wikimedia Commons links to Special:Captcha which mentions (but does
not obviously link to) Commons:Contact us which links to Commons:Help
desk, which permits anonymous posting. (Some other Wikimedia sites,
such as English language Wiktionary, use the same CAPTCHA. The English
language Wikipedia does not use a CAPTCHA at all.)
Presumably they're referring to signing up for a new account. (I think
captchas are also triggered when anon users introduce new external
links.)
Can anyone confirm or deny that enwp doesn't have the same captcha?? I
thought all WMF projects had the same one now?
cheers
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Nagyon kellemes KARÁCSONYT és boldog Új Esztendőt kívánok minde
n wiki-ző barátunknak, erőt, egészséget, munkahelyet, sikereket a
z életben : öregJani
_________________________________________
Éhes vagy? Internetes ételrendelés, egyszerűen, házhozszállít
ással! Pizzák, hamburgerek, saláták, stb.... Minden egy helyen! KLI
KK IDE!
Hi there,
thanks to Luxo, we now have a bot that rotates pictures
(http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Rotatebot). This is really great.
Could we maybe also create a bot, that allows people to crop images online?
Blog software like http://www.s9y.org/ and http://www.pivotlog.net is
already able that. Maybe we can gpl some code from them ...
What do you think? Do we need such a need? Can we create such a thing? Do we
maybe already have such a thing?
Best regards,
Flo
> Earlier: "...I think we should just use common sense. In all honesty,
I think that we
should allow most non threatening materials which would not spark
largescale
anger - don't forget the commons motto which if I remember is something
like
"a database of freely usable media files - not a database of educational
Materials"..."
Peter Blaise responds: Great advice, but "common" is such an uncommon
thing! Especially in the "Commons"!
The reference to things "common" for me is based on the US Declaration
of Independence, the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Amendments, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and so on.
What's "common" mean to you?
"Non threatening" and "not spark large scale anger" have never been
criteria in any of my "common sense" references. I think of the
struggles to garner religious and personal freedoms, children's rights,
women's rights, the rights of people of color, the rights of people with
disabilities, abandoning caste systems ... all these come about through
much threatening and sparking large scale anger, right?
Also, on the Internet, ONE single, solo person can dominate a group,
good or bad, and "look" like a "large scale" situation, so the term
"large scale" is almost impossible to accurately and unambiguously
quantify, and base policy on, even though it sounds nice. It even
smacks of "appeasing the bully" in trying to placate someone's manifest
anger.
I don't think anger's a good or bad thing. It's just part and parcel of
some people's gyrations, thought process, and sharing, and is part of
the flow of things. After all, it's only a mailing list, and these are
only words! Anger is in the eye of the beholder, right? ARGH!
Is my writing "ARGH" anger, or frustration, or irony, or submission, or
ridicule, or teasing ... or what? It's just words. It doesn't matter.
Go with the flow!
Same with pictures. It's just pictures. And words. Read 'em. Or not.
Respond. Or not. Move on. Or not. I think that's all I'm encouraging
the originator of this thread (copied below), to do. Those cartoons?
Read 'em (or not) just like the rest of us, and move on (or not).
Vivisecting political cartoons have been around since politicians have
been around.
> Earlier: "... [photo Gallery page] ... in commons includes ...
cartoons [presumably that express a point of view] ... Commons does not
have a NPOV policy ..."
Peter Blaise responds: I have another observation: what are "Galleries"
for in the first place? Shouldn't the Commons be the one place where
Categories themselves reign supreme? If I want to find all resources in
Commons on any topic, such as "Ariel Sharon", why have a hand-selected
Gallery of not all Commons resources, when an all inclusive search by
Category would be a more honest reflection of the true Commons contents?
Sadly, those cartoons are not even objectively categorized by content.
They appear to have been assessed by type over content:
Category:Caricatures of ...
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Caricatures_of_Ariel_Sharon
So, although the intention of the original poster in this thread was to
filter Commons contents by their own criteria, I see it has revealed
that there are already too many filters on the Commons, and the
"Categories" feature us waay underutilized. I think Categories should
be expanded to include anything salient and relevant that EXIF and IPTC
Metadata would include.
>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I noticed something interesting today: the daily-image-l mailing list
> [1] now has 1001 subscribers. It was started in late February 2007, so
> in less than a year it has picked up all those people. Pretty cool I
> think.
>
Does that make me the lucky lady? I subscribed yesterday.
Hi all.
Hola.
Tag.
Bonjour.
Einmal hatte ich Fluenz in Deutsch, aber selten kann diese Sprache Mann in
Californien praktizieren.
Este es mi lengua tercera. Es mas utíl en ciudad San Diego.
-Durova
Hi folks,
I noticed something interesting today: the daily-image-l mailing list
[1] now has 1001 subscribers. It was started in late February 2007, so
in less than a year it has picked up all those people. Pretty cool I
think.
For those who don't know, this mailing list is kind of for people who
are NOT Wikimedians but still maybe interested in getting a free
pretty picture each day. So each day they get a mail with a link to
the image, license info, and captions in as many languages as
provided.
I had a quick look over the membership list to see what language
interface (for mailman) people had used to subscribe. There are 24
different languages! The mailing list is linked on the Commons English
main page, and maybe a dozen or two other language main pages[2], but
certainly not all of them.
I started counting the totals for each language subscription but it
was a bit tedious so I only got about halfway through. ;) Nonetheless
here are some trends:
- Spanish was by far the most used language after English.
- Other highly used languages were French, German, Chinese.
- really surprising: Japanese only had one subscriber [surprising
because ja.wp is the 5th largest Wikipedia, but I think the link is
not on the Japanese main page]
- Polish was also seemingly underrepresented
To see the variety of languages used is really heartening, both for
Commons and also for the general open source translator community!
These are the languages Mailman supports now: [3]
How to add a new language translation: [4]
How to add translations of the Commons POTD captions: go to [5] and
start clicking on redlinks and filling out ones you know :)
The growth in subscribers to this list also says to me that there is a
lot of fairly passive interest in Wikimedia projects that we perhaps
don't capture too well. Any project can start this kind of list: there
is "daily-article-l" for English Wikipedia and there could be for
other languages too. Just suggest the idea to your community, get some
support, make a bugzilla request for the new list, and either set up a
script to automatically mail the content each day, or do it by hand
yourself. If your wiki already has some kind of "daily content" then
it is not too hard to do.
cheers,
Brianna
[1]: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/daily-image-l
[2]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=li…
[3]: http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/Languages
[4]: http://wiki.list.org/display/DEV/i18nhowto
[5]: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_day
> Earlier: "... The important question[s]
> then, [are,] are we displaying images that
> people find offensive in spite of the fact
> that the get offended, or are we
> displaying them because of the fact
> they get offended? If it is the latter, we
> have a moral obligation to take them
> down, and question our own ethics. If
> it is the former, we have a duty to
> remain uncensored ... I fear that these
> cartoons in question (the ones of
> Sharon) fit squarely into the latter ..."
Peter Blaise responds: I disagree. Two points.
1 - Ignore the perceived content of the images, then make your decision
to keep them or not.
2 - After we make the decision to keep them regardless of perceived
content, I disagree about the perceived content.
More to the third point raised above: I find none of them provocative
for the sake of being provocative ... though, there is nothing wrong and
censorable or censurable about being provocative for the sake of being
provocative. Just as there is nothing actionable about being funny for
the sake of being funny, or being ironic for the sake of being ironic,
or being ... you get my point, I hope.
"But, he is being offensive, the images themselves are offensive!"
BS
Offence is in the eye of the beholder. If Joe Muslim does not what to
sin by making a graven image of Mohamed, then let Joe Muslim not sin by
not making a graven image of Mohamed. What does that have to do with me
making one, or enjoying someone else's?
Many of Latuff's images strike me as ridiculing people who themselves
strike me as ridiculous by their own behavior and words. That's just my
take. I've seen the pictures, and I can't imagine how anyone subsequent
to me would be damaged if I seem to be able to see them without being
damaged myself. Censorship is such hypocrisy: "I can see these but you
can't"?!? See web places like
http://www.anis-online.de/1/rooms/latuff/likud.htm
for well exercised dialog on this particular topic. For the general
topic, see web resources such as a Google [censorship pictures] search.
737,000 results.
But here, what do we say? How about:
"Dear Joe Muslim (and Larry Hebrew/Jew, Heather Christian, Ben Hindu,
and so on ...),
Thank you for asking me to join your personal choices, but I
decline. I do not accept the choices you've made for yourself as
choices I make for myself, and I accept no authority but the authority
we the people continually build together for the unity, justice,
tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty for ourselves and our
posterity."
Yada yada, so on and so forth. The end. Case closed.
... until someone else comes along and wants to quash each other's
contributions to the community.
Instead of:
"Caution, some people might find images in this collection offensive!"
... let's try:
"Caution, we have found that some people seem to be immature and unable
to manage themselves when they feel surprised, provoked, or offended.
If you are one of those, then enjoy your own personal rage in response
to some of the pictures inside, but please do not ask us over and over
to take the images down - such requests to remove legitimate
contributions that fulfill the purpose of commons will get the same "NO"
response as previous requests. Thank you for visiting, and try to enjoy
your day and yourself anyway. We are."
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/mba/lowres/mban1608
l.jpg
EXIF is not IPTC metadata - see http://www.exif.org/ versus
http://www.iptc.org/photometadata/ and so on.
Let's open a can of worms!
No ... let's write an extension to, or core for, MediaWiki that only
permits successful image upload when all metadata is filled in on a
web-form during submission, and that form's blanks get:
(a) automatically read from metadata within images that already have it
at the time of upload; and / or
(b) gets that metadata inserted by the end user / submitter for any data
that is missing; and
(c) contemporaneous data gets inserted, such as IP and date and user ID.
I have my camera automatically put "peterblaise.com" in the EXIF of my
images immediately during the making of even the latent image (that's
when my copyright happens), but many image converters strip out EXIF and
IPTC metadata. Many people superimpose their copyright IN the image
fascia, but cropping or cloning can remove that, and too overwhelming a
copyright notice changes the image and often makes it purposeless.
Rather than contact you with a credit card (are you even ready?) for a
non-watermarked copy, and await your response, they will move on to a
non-watermarked image.
The world's most popular free Google Picasa strips metadata at the time
of export and replaces it with "Picasa" in the "Byline:"!
That newspaper should never have published that image without having,
and being able to provide on demand, an audit trail of it's origins. If
Joe Reader sent it in, then the newspaper should have that audit trail,
and then Joe Reader is the one to sue (civil) for compensation, and also
complain to the authorities (criminal) for prosecution. If the
newspaper uses Picasa and just publishes anything it wants, it should be
confronted on both civil and criminal counts.
Back at ya:
Q: How can any of us prove the picture was ours before someone else
publishes it?
A: http://www.copyright.gov/register/visual.html
--
Q: How to insert IPTC metadata in our image files before distribution?
A: http://www.photools.com/ and hundreds of other controlled vocabulary
IPTC-compatible software - see also http://www.controlledvocabulary.com/
--
So, cc: wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org is anyone up for developing an
extension or core code to make MediaWiki accurately handle such MEDIA as
photography and images with EXIT and IPTC metadata? Sound recordings
can't be far behind. Spoken work and music are ripe for cataloging
wiki-style. Will it be MEDIAWiki style?
cc: also to
http://picasa.google.com/support/bin/request.py?contact_type=testimonial