>In response to all the category intersection/flattening stuff
It's amazing how different this conversation sounds when you compare
the wikitech-l one vs the commons-l one.
-bawolff
On 7 February 2010 13:09, Daniel Schwen <lists(a)schwen.de> wrote:
> Ok, lets's say Neil found a way to deal with 10. I give you that this
> is implementation specific. Number 2) however is independent of any
> implementation. Here you have your "hoop" (to to stick with your
> pejorative lingo): Get rid of the crazy category system and go atomic.
> What is vague about this, what part of this is unclear to you?
The problem is that doing this before the feature that uses it is in
place renders categorisation on Commons even more useless. What this
will mean is that you will be requiring a direct reduction in the
usability of the wiki content before *possibly* implementing a
feature.
In practice, the difference between this and saying "No, never" is
telling people to do work that you know can't happen.
Please leave commons-l in the cc: this time, thanks.
- d.
On 7 February 2010 13:27, Roan Kattouw <roan.kattouw(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> There's no reason why it couldn't be the other way around: an
> intersection feature could be written and deployed *first*, *then* the
> category trees on Commons would be gradually migrated to the new
> system. Issues like nonsense results for automatic flattening could be
> migitated by disabling features or making them less visible.
*Precisely*. This is why the new (and it is new) demand to trash the
present category tree before *possibly* implementing a category
intersection feature is, in practical terms, indistinguishable from
sheer contemptuous obstructionism. Daniel may be terribly offended
that I dare to be acerbic about his expression of contempt, but I find
his expression of contempt rather more offensive.
- d.
On 7 February 2010 08:45, Andrew Garrett <agarrett(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Not at all, it's entirely reasonable to discuss the problems associated
> with the current categorisation system, and what methods we'd like to
> use to improve it.
The current categorization system is per-wiki-specific. It's done
differently in different places. So it's not clear that you won't
require 750 different discussions.
To get back to the topic of category intersections on Commons:
Could the developers please outline, point by point, the precise hoops
we need to jump through to get category intersections on Commons? New
hoops seem to have been introduced during the currently discussion.
Please make an unambiguous list of the hoops Commons will be required
to jump through before this feature can happen, so it's actually clear
to all and we're all working from the same page, rather than trying to
guess what shrubbery you'll be demanding next.
Thanks!
- d.
On 4 February 2010 17:38, Daniel Schwen <lists(a)schwen.de> wrote:
>> But we need the functionality there first, so we can *then* flatten.
> Ahh, the good old chicken and egg ;-)
> I don't let that count. We have plenty of working category
> intersection tools already.
Yes, but they're not part of the interface.
The technology needs to work with the data - the six million files and
their categories, carefully added by hand by humans.
If category intersections worked, they could then be broken down to
work better with category intersections.
Demanding that all six million files be de-categorised before you'll
even allow a category intersection tool to *possibly* be deployed is
backward.
People need to be able to go gradually.
- d.
Robert Stojnic schrieb:
> Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> Right. Supporting category intersection and search in category with
>> better UI (we already sort of support it if you know the right magic
>> terms) is what we should be aiming for here.
>>
>
> Last year, just around this time, we came to the exactly same
> conclusion. And similarly like then, there is no shortage of good
> opinions on how to do it, but people to actually do the programming.
>
> r.
Wikimedia Germany has contracted Neil Harris to work on implementing deep
category intersection. The goal is basically a rewrite of my sucky CatScan tool.
The result is hopefully fast & generic enough so it can be used as a service
that integrates with the current search infrastructure.
The project has started, there is funding and a project plan. I expect to see
usable results soon. In fact, I hope to present this at the developer meeting in
april (neil, contact me about attending) and discuss the integration into lucene
search.
I agree that full recursive flattening of the current category structure leads
to bad results some times (especially on the english wikipedia, commons is quite
bad too), a depth of 5 however is generally useful. One common use case is
intersecting a content category with a maintenance category, for organizing
editorial work in a wiki project. In that case, at least one category comes from
a template.
Atomic categorization aka tagging however also sucks: the tags are either too
generic (so it's hard to find stuff) or too specific (you never know what to
search for). tags implying/including other tags is very useful. which is exactly
what categories with deep intersection will provide.
-- daniel
Hello all! Apologies for the very short notice!
Today's office hours are featuring Guillaume Paumier, and Neil
Kaandalgaonkar, who are Project Manager and Software Developer for the
Multimedia Usability Project. Read more about them at:
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:Guillom> and
<http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:NeilK>
Office hours are from 1700 to 1800 UTC (9:00 AM to 10:00 AM PST).
If you do not have an IRC client, there are two ways you can come chat
using a web browser: First is using the Wikizine chat gateway at
<http://chatwikizine.memebot.com/cgi-bin/cgiirc/irc.cgi>. Type a
nickname, select irc.freenode.net from the top menu and
#wikimedia-office from the following menu, then login to join.
Also, you can access Freenode by going to http://webchat.freenode.net/,
typing in the nickname of your choice and choosing wikimedia-office as
the channel. You may be prompted to click through a security warning.
It should be all right.
Please feel free to forward (and translate!) this email to any other
relevant email lists you happen to be on.
--
Cary Bass
Volunteer Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hi all,
I am forwarding the below conversation to commons-l so it's known for
the record that I've warned the webmaster of DifferenceBetween.net
about their copyright violations. Less than a day after they got my
email, they removed Ouda's image from
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-crunches…
. We will see if the webmaster adds caption lines for all other
infringing images, like the image in
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-cellular-respir…
which is a copy of the dual CC-BY-SA/GFDL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simple_photosynthesis_overview.svg.
If the webmaster doesn't, the next step is for us to send a variation
on http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_license_violation_letter#Follo…
and maybe to add a warning that we will contact his web hosting
provider (whois indicates that it's probably 1and1.com). Actually, do
you think it's fine to add such a warning, or better not to?
Forwarded conversation follows.
Cheers,
--[[en:user:unforgettableid]]
Forwarded conversation
Subject: Dear DifferenceBetween.net: international copyright law says
you must provide attribution on all non-PD images you have copied from
Wikimedia Commons
------------------------
From: unforgettableid <unforgettableid(a)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 3:55 AM
To: contact(a)differencebetween.net, proxy1793534(a)1and1-private-registration.com
Cc: Wikimedia Commons public mailing list
<commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Mohamed Mostafa Ouda
<mmustafa8(a)gmail.com>
cc: Wikimedia Commons public mailing list
Dear DifferenceBetween.net staff,
You write on your About page[1], "Images used in our site are either
public domain images obtained from wikimedia.org or photos taken by
us." We at Wikimedia Commons appreciate that you mention
wikimedia.org on your About page. But that is not enough. And in
fact, most of the images on wikimedia.org are not public domain. It
is only legal to reuse such images if you follow certain rules.
Let's look at an example image. A search at www.tineye.com shows that
"Difference Between Crunches and Sit ups"[2] reuses an image[3] made
by Mohamed Ouda[4]. He made it himself[4] and released it under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC-BY-SA-3.0)
license[5]. The image description page[3] says that if you reuse the
image, "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the
author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse
you or your use of the work)." In other words, Mr. Ouda has said that
in order to reuse the image he made, you must follow his conditions.
International copyright law requires it, and common courtesy requires
it as well.
It seems to me from various articles[6][7][8] on the Creative Commons
(CC) and Wikimedia Commons sites that the proper way to provide
attribution for a CC-BY-SA-3.0-licensed image like Mr. Ouda's is to
include a one-line photo credit where you use the image, such as:
Mohamed Ouda / CC-BY-SA-3.0
The proper way to provide attribution is a bit different[7][8] if you
reuse images with other CC licenses, like CC-BY-SA-2.5 or CC-BY-3.0.
It is quite different[7][8] if you reuse images released only under
the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) or another non-CC license.
1. Do you have any questions?
2. Are you ready to start providing attribution on all new images you
copy from Wikimedia Commons to your site?
3. Are you ready to start going through all the old images you have
copied from Wikimedia Commons and start providing attribution?
www.tineye.com may help you find the source locations for images you
have already copied.
Please "Reply to All"; otherwise, it will appear to many of us as if
you did not reply at all.
Kind regards,
--Unforgettableid
^ [1]. http://www.differencebetween.net/about/
^ [2]. http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-crunches…
^ [3]. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crunch.gif
^ [4]. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mohamed_Ouda
^ [5]. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en
^ [6]. http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FFAQ#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative…
^ [7]. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Credit_line
^ [8]. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Reusing_content_outside_Wikimedia
----------
From: Difference Between <contact(a)differencebetween.net>
Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 8:21 PM
To: unforgettableid <unforgettableid(a)gmail.com>
Cc: proxy1793534(a)1and1-private-registration.com, Wikimedia Commons
public mailing list <commons-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Mohamed Mostafa
Ouda <mmustafa8(a)gmail.com>
Hi,
Thank you for pointing out the mistake.
We will definitely give attribution to those images that are not in
Public domain. At the beginning we thought all the images available
on wikimedia is on Public Domain.
But at one point we learnt not all of them are in Public Domain and
chose only the Public domain images.
We will go through all the images and make sure those images that are
not in Public domain will be attributed.
Thanks
DifferenceBetween.net
------------------------------------------------------------
DifferenceBetween.net - Articles comparing similar terms and objects
contact(a)differencebetween.net
+1 646 736 7869
