Hi all,
As most of you probably know, I wrote Flickr upload bot back in May
2007 because there was a lot demand for uploading free images from
Flickr to Commons. And apparently people find it useful, since as of
September 2010, over 80k images have been uploaded via this bot. In
addition over 50k images have been uploaded via a similar bot by
Magnus Manske.
Unfortunately as you may know, every other day those tools break (mine
more than Magnus'). Both have an annoying authentication mechanism,
which requires you to do extra stuff to be able to upload (either post
a token to a file page, or use TUSC). Both problems would be solved if
there was a MediaWiki extension to handle this task.
I eventually plan to write a MediaWiki extension that does such a
thing and get it enabled on Commons. Therefore, I need to know what
you like and dislike about those tools, so that I can take this
feedback into account when writing this extension. Don't expect to see
something in the short term though, but I hope that in the mid-long
term we will have such an extension on Commons.
-- Bryan
It looks like a solution to bug 4547 is on the horizon.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4547
See also [Wikitech-l] Reasonably efficient interwiki transclusion
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/wiki/wikitech/197322
This will be very useful for templates which Commons has developed,
especially language related templates, however I am concerned that
people are also planning on using Commons as a repo for Wikipedia
infoboxes, and including the *data* on Commons rather than just the
template code. e.g.
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Peter17/GSoc_2010#Interest
This centralisation of data makes sense on many levels, however using
Commons as the host of this data will result in many edit wars moving
to the Commons project, involving people from many languages. Even
the infobox structure can be the cause of edit wars.
I think it is undesirable to have these Wikipedia problems added to
Commons existing problems. ;-)
Tying Wikipedia and Commons closer together is also problematic when
we consider the differing audience and scope of each project,
especially in light of the recent media problems. If the core
templates and data used by Wikipedia are hosted/modified on Commons,
it will be more difficult to justify why Commons accepts content which
isn't appropriate on Wikipedia.
A centralised data wiki has been proposed previously, many times:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/historicalhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidatahttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata_%282%29http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDatabank
Non-WMF projects, such as freebase, dbpedia, etc., have been exploring
this space.
Isn't it time that we started a new project!? ;-)
A wikidata project could use semantic mediawiki from the outset, and
be seeded with data from dbpedia.
A lot of existing & proposed projects would benefit from a centralised
wikidata project. e.g. a genealogy wiki could use the relationships
stored on the wikidata project. wikisource and commons could use the
central data wiki for their Author and Creator details.
--
John Vandenberg
Hoi,
I am writing a series of blog posts about Commons. My aim is to identify the
issues that I have with how it functions. There are several and I do not
bother to write about the ones that are being tackled by the team around
Guillaume (as far as it is clear to me what they are doing).
The latest blog is about the difficulty of finding pictures, I am also of
the opinion that we have the opportunity to be more of a resource of stock
images that are freely licensed. We should stimulate this. Yes Commons is
growing rapidly. Its coverage leaves a lot to be desired. In my opinion we
need to concentrate on search and coverage to make Commons truly kick ass.
Thanks.
GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/search/label/Commons
Today I attended yet another workshop where a brave
volunteer tried to explain the usefulness of
Wikimedia Commons to teachers/scientists. During
the following exercise, a very computer literate
senior geneticist tried to access wikimedia.org
and landed on the Wikimedia Foundation website.
After this mistake was corrected, she soon found
category:genetics, but from there couldn't find
anything about DNA. Category:DNA exists, but is
hidden some levels down. The immediate subcategories
to Genetics are not the obvious ones to a geneticist.
People who are very excited and want to learn,
constantly run into these stupid mistakes.
Can we please get rid of the name Wikimedia?
The M-and-P confusion is among the very worst.
Call it "Wikipedia Foundation". Rename Commons
to be "Wikipedia Pictures". These two simple
changes would save sooooooooooo much time.
Yes, I know Wikimedia is more than just Wikipedia,
that it also covers Wikisource, Wikibooks and
all the other side projects. I also know that
Commons is more than just pictures. I've been
with Wikipedia since May 2001. But the everyday
struggle of having to explain M-and-P is taking
all the fun out of it. Is it really worth that?
Now, the second part. Finding pictures in Commons
is really hard. It seems that categories and textual
descriptions are added by the uploader, and rarely
modified or enhanced by others. Finding a map of bird
migration paths across Europe might be easy, but
finding a plain and simple map of Europe is hard.
Images that appear directly in top categories (such
as Category:Maps of Europe) are a very random mix,
and not the most useful generic maps of Europe.
The "next 200" navigation is a total disaster,
that not a single newcomer understands. Anything
that is beyond the first 200 (e.g. subcategories
that start with M-Z) are not found.
Is there any topic category on Commons that is
actively maintained for easy searching, i.e.
where subcategories are well defined and where
new images are systematically monitored and
recategorized with enhanced descriptions? If I
could find such an example, perhaps it could
provide inspiration for other topics where a
specialist with some extra time (or a grant
application) could improve the actual usefulness
of Commons.
--
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
FYI, posting this question on wikitech-l mostly to get a security
perspective on this.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: 2010/10/25
Subject: Commons ZIP file upload for admins
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello all,
for some types of resources, it's desirable to upload source files
(whether it's Blender, COLLADA, Scribus, EDL, or some other format),
so that others can more easily remix and process them. Currently, as
far as I know, there's no way to upload these resources to Commons.
What would be the arguments against allowing administrators to upload
arbitrary ZIP files on Wikimedia Commons, allowing the Commons
community to develop policy and process around when such archived
resources are appropriate? An alternative, of course, would be to
whitelist every possible source format for admins, but it seems to me
that it would be a good general policy to not enable additional
support for formats that aren't officially supported (reduces
confusion among users about what's permitted -- there's only one file
format they can't use).
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Erik
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hi all,
Today Wikimedia Foundation Exec. Director Sue Gardner will be in this
week's installment of IRC office hours at 23:00 UTC. As usual, the
format is completely open, so bring any burning questions you might have
to the #wikimedia-office channel on irc.freenode.net. Local times and
instructions for accessing the chat, including for those without an IRC
client, can be found on Meta at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours. The log of the
discussion will be publicly posted on that page afterwards for those
cannot attend.
Many thanks,
--
Steven Walling
Wikimedia Foundation Fellow
(wikimediafoundation.org)
(adapted from the message I left on the Village pump:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#The_Licensing_tutori…
. The on-wiki text has all the handy links, too.)
Hi. As you may know, I'm working on a Licensing tutorial, as part of the
Multimedia usability project. The goal is to separate the "educational"
part of the current upload page (that no one reads) from the actual
upload form, and at the same time encourage more users to actually read
it.
The illustrator we're working with just delivered the first drafts of
his designs, and we have until the end of the week to provide feedback.
Per our agreement with him, the final artwork will be released under
CC-by-sa, but the in-progress designs can't be shared publicly. However,
as a long-time community member, I know it's critical for the community
to weigh in, and I certainly don't expect to make all the decisions
alone.
As a compromise, I've temporarily published the PDF outside Commons. I'm
going to send private e-mails to a number of Commons users who I think
can provide useful feedback, but I'm happy to send the link to the PDF
to anyone who's interested in helping. Just sign-up on the village pump.
In the meantime, I'll also do some hallway user testing of the tutorial
with people who don't know about free licenses.
Many thanks in advance to everyone who'll be willing to help out! Sign
up at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#The_Licensing_tutori…
PS: Did you know you could still test the upload wizard prototype at
http://commons.prototype.wikimedia.org/uwb/Special:UploadWizard ? It's
been improved: the new "temporary upload" system now works, and it
doesn't require file renaming any more.
--
Guillaume Paumier
Product Manager, Multimedia Usability
Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate