>Message: 1
>Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:13:42 +0000
>From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
>Subject: [Commons-l] CC video game: commoners vs enclosure
>To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Message-ID:
<fbad4e140902131013q25930cfdhb89067b0a5d93c90(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>http://www.onthecommons.org/content.php?id=2243
>
>(That Commons, not this Commons, but apposite to this list.)
>
>
-> d.
(cough cc-by-'''nc'''-sa)....
Still kind of cool though.
-bawolff
Hi everyone,
as a discussion on the Village Pump made it clear that we want to have
the rollback feature enabled for non-admins, I have started a proposal
at Commons:Rollback. Feel free to drop your thoughts on the talk page.
See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Rollback
Thanks and best regards,
ChrisiPK
>
>In terms of activist groups potentially contributing to Commons:
>
>When I was in Hobart recently for Linux Conference Australia 2009 the
>"Steve Irwin" (the Flagship of the Sea [[Shepherd]] anti-whaling
>group) had just pulled in to port for refueling and supplies.
Actually I talk to Mr. Watson a bit and through his brother Stephen
Watson (a great nature artist) I have a CD of Sea Shepherd photos but
unfortunately he sent me low resolution photos but still interesting
to view.. I have permission from Sea Shepherd but they hardly answer
their e-mails if Commons needs them to send the permissions.
WayneRay
This looks interesting!
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/15-media/photographers-wikimedia-commons-ima…
It seems members of the anti-scientology movement are interested in
contributing to commons - I've heard tell of some early en-wiki volunteers
being previously active in usenet scientology discussions, so it's
interesting to see the next generation plugging in...
cheers,
Peter,
PM.
Once we ship the firefogg extension support for the uploading videos;
commons should request that users select the highest quality source
video footage available ie the HD video their camera captured or DV
original edited footage from their local computer and then commons will
supply the transcode settings.
I think it would be good if we wrote up some documentation to explain
this to uploaders... any volunteers to help on that front?
Presently for the firefogg upload support I have arbitrarily chosen 400
pixels wide with keep-aspect ratio and 500kbs bitrate.
Firefogg could let us request multiple encodes or profiles from the user.
Should we plan on supporting multiple "profiles" ie multiple quality
settings? Ie one version at around 320 wide 300kbs for low bandwidth /
resolution environments, cell phones etc (300kbs should be "acceptable
quality" once the new Thusnelda theora encoder lands).
We could additionally read the source file resolution that users provide
and choose a "maximum quality preservation version" we could probably
even ship the Dirac codec with firefogg (Dirac is a high quality at high
resolution wavelate codec for more on dirac see your favorite info source ;)
If we want to support multiple quality settings for a single "stream"
this will require a bit more infrastructure. Specifically I propose we
add another namespace for temporal media called Stream: and have it
directly map to ROE xml something like: http://tinyurl.com/72x57r more
info on ROE http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/ROE
File:my_movie_low_quality.ogg and File:my_movie_high_quality.ogg would
soft redirect to Stream:my_movie and all the meta info would be stored
there. The Stream namespace also allows us to group other media tracks
that share a temporal meaning such as multiple language audio dubbing
and multilingual transcripts/ subtitles. The javascript player can then
dynamically select audio language and or subtitles based on the user
language.
Stream namespace could also store "mirrors" or point to "torrents"
improving syndication and bandwith cost distribution for high traffic HD
content ie (Miro could read the ROE file and grab the torrent rather
than hit our servers) and or a Firefox torrent extension could be
detected by our javascript player and choose the torrent over hitting
our servers for the HD content.
Not to say all these things will happen at once ... just pointing out
the need for a new namespace to group idential temporal meaning files.
--michael
Hi all,
As you are probably aware, enabling reuse is an important part of
Wikimedia Commons' mission. We do this for humans by clearly
indicating licenses and author information (that's the theory, anyway
:)). But we also need to do it for machines, because it is machines
that allow reuse of our material on a much larger scale, e.g. by
libraries, museums, and other archives.
Currently the data we provide for machines in quite poor. Although it
is quite easy for a human to look and see that {{GFDL}} is a license
template, for machines it is much harder because there is no
"standard" that says which templates represent licenses and which
represent other things. Figuring out who the author is, for
attribution purposes, is also often difficult (is it the uploader?
what if someone uploaded a slightly edited version?). As an example,
PediaPress would like to use this information, for their printed
wiki-books, to put the licenses of the images. At the moment there is
literally no way they could do this reliably without having a human do
it for every single image.
Anyway, it is my strong belief that for Wikimedia Commons to be more
successful and more useful, we need a way of encoding this kind of
information in a machine-readable format. There are a number of
different approaches one could take, but I think it is better if we
just ask the developers for any extension/feature which will do this
job, and let them figure out which is most appropriate.
If you agree, please sign
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Request_for_extensio…>
and indicate your support for helping Wikimedia Commons material
reach a wider audience. ***Community support is a necessary condition
to get a feature like this enabled.*** So please speak up if you want
to support this idea, by signing the page.
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Request_for_extensio…>
thanks!
Brianna
--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Dear All,
[cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l]
Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service
but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we
help?
Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National
Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian
institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government
departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at
http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other
contributors at
http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html
This is a quote from the email written to me from PA:
At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are
interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are
a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee:
1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are
able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images.
Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to
some basic standards. (see
http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html).
2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from
Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an
issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were
attempting to buy a copy.
3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how
to ingest the data.
I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or
easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to
PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories?
All the best,
- Liam Wyatt
--
Email - liamwyatt(a)gmail.com
Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914
Skype - Wittylama
Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]
repost to get cross posting now I'm on both wmau list and commons list
2009/2/3 Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>
>
> 1 - Commons file information is actually more accurate with greater detail
> compared to flickr images we have a greater degree of scrutiny ensuring that
> the images are appropriate and freely licensed, also our scope isnt that of
> flickr and we seek more images of record/encyclopaedic relevance. I have
> already contacted PA on a number of occassion with errors in identifications
> and spelling on image they already have
>
> 2 - All of our images are under a free license in accordance with both
> policies and Australian laws the image source is listed, we can filter out
> image from other sources by just creating another category call "Picture
> Australia" and setting up its scope of being self made Australian images. As
> PA sources include libraries they already have a number of duplicated
> images, many of which dont even have the same description.
>
> 3 - There are already bots/scripts available that can identify recent
> additions, and there are some good OS writers so having something created to
> do the work shouldnt be a big issue its just a matter of finding someone
> willing. Of course this would be an open source program which PA could use
> else where in the future
>
> 4. - a Picture Australia category, and the software written to aquire
> images from that category inparticular and from other categories in
> particular wouldnt be a problem
>
> 2009/2/3 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt(a)gmail.com>
>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> [cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l]
>>
>> Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service
>> but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we
>> help?
>>
>> Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National
>> Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian
>> institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government
>> departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at
>> http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other
>> contributors at
>> http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html
>>
>> This is a quote from the email written to me from PA:
>> At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are
>> interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are
>> a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee:
>> 1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are
>> able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images.
>> Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to
>> some basic standards. (see
>> http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html).
>> 2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from
>> Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an
>> issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were
>> attempting to buy a copy.
>> 3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how
>> to ingest the data.
>>
>> I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or
>> easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to
>> PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories?
>>
>> All the best,
>> - Liam Wyatt
>>
>> --
>> Email - liamwyatt(a)gmail.com
>> Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914
>> Skype - Wittylama
>> Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/
>
--
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/