headers
Brianna Laugher | 1 Apr 2007 15:21
Picon
Gravatar

InstantCommons demo

From a message Erik posted to mediawiki-l (
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2007-March/018708.html
):

There's a first demo impl of InstantCommons up at:
http://141.13.22.239/ic-client/index.php/Main_Page

What this does: Allows any MediaWiki installation to transparently
load (and cache) images from a central repository like Commons,
provided the repository permits it. Ideally, Wikimedia Commons will do
so, and any installation in the world will be able to use files from
Commons as if they were locally uploaded.

The current code is in the instantcommons branch. There are still a
few issues and it's not feature-complete yet before it can go to the
official review.

===============
(note: it's not working on Commons, but a fake Commons)

It doesn't seem to create a log entry for the 'borrowed' images, but
still creates image page s for them (but doesn't link to the source in
any way, which is a bit weird).
probably wiki admins would like to know which images have been 'borrowed'.

No idea why Erik didn't post here as well, as if we're not interested :)

cheers
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 16 comments |
headers
Daniel Kinzler | 1 Apr 2007 21:16
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

Brianna Laugher wrote:
> What this does: Allows any MediaWiki installation to transparently
> load (and cache) images from a central repository like Commons,
> provided the repository permits it. 

Cool! I have been waiting for something like that for quite a while.

> It doesn't seem to create a log entry for the 'borrowed' images, but
> still creates image page s for them (but doesn't link to the source in
> any way, which is a bit weird).
> probably wiki admins would like to know which images have been 'borrowed'.

Linking back to the original page is essential, of course. Also, links to the
uploader's user page (and also the author's page, if different) have to work to
fulfill the attribution requirement. (I can check if they do, the demo site
appears to be down).

But most importantly: what happens if an image is deleted from commons? Does it
vanish from the sites using it via InstantCommons? Or does it just stay? That
would not be good legally...

Ideally, the image would be replaced by a warning icons, and local admins can
decide if they want to delete, or "really" import their cached copy, and take
responsibility.

> No idea why Erik didn't post here as well, as if we're not interested  :) 

Well, maybe he'll tell us :)

-- Daniel
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Bryan Tong Minh | 1 Apr 2007 21:54
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@...> wrote:
> But most importantly: what happens if an image is deleted from commons? Does it
> vanish from the sites using it via InstantCommons? Or does it just stay? That
> would not be good legally...
>
> Ideally, the image would be replaced by a warning icons, and local admins can
> decide if they want to delete, or "really" import their cached copy, and take
> responsibility.
>
Probably the same mess as now at the WM wikis :) They would need a
CommonsTicker, or whatever.

Bryan
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 1 Apr 2007 22:05
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@...> wrote:
> Linking back to the original page is essential, of course. Also, links to the
> uploader's user page (and also the author's page, if different) have to work to
> fulfill the attribution requirement. (I can check if they do, the demo site
> appears to be down).

Uploaders page is often not the copyright holder. My view is that it
should translucde the page text like commons wiki does on the other
projects, and correctly fix up all the links.

> But most importantly: what happens if an image is deleted from commons? Does it
> vanish from the sites using it via InstantCommons? Or does it just stay? That
> would not be good legally...

Image revocation is a must solve feature before we could activate it
on commons.  Part of the reason that we don't get in deep-crap with
more copyright holders is that when they contact us we make the file
go bye-bye quickly.   If many other sites are invisibly and
automatically mirroring commons content without human oversight and
ignoring our deletions, then this kills our ability to effectively
take down infringements and keep copyright holders happy.

> Ideally, the image would be replaced by a warning icons, and local admins can
> decide if they want to delete, or "really" import their cached copy, and take
> responsibility.

It would be in our interest to block access to sites which continue to
distribute copyright infringements which we have deleted.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Delphine Ménard | 1 Apr 2007 22:30
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@...> wrote:

> It would be in our interest to block access to sites which continue to
> distribute copyright infringements which we have deleted.

Right. On another note, has a policy been thought out about mediawiki
installations which would bar their users from uploading images
locally and ask them to do so on Commons?

Does the Wikimedia Commons community have the strength to deal with
potentially thousands of new users not aware of our "free" policies
and uploading images to Commons?

Is there a requirement that the websites allowed to use InstantCommons
host free content? Or can every Tom Dick or Harry use InstantCommons?

Delphine
--

-- 
~notafish
NB. This address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to
this address will probably get lost.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 1 Apr 2007 23:00
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/1/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 4/1/07, Daniel Kinzler <daniel <at> brightbyte.de> wrote:
>
> > It would be in our interest to block access to sites which continue to
> > distribute copyright infringements which we have deleted.
>
> Right. On another note, has a policy been thought out about mediawiki
> installations which would bar their users from uploading images
> locally and ask them to do so on Commons?
>
> Does the Wikimedia Commons community have the strength to deal with
> potentially thousands of new users not aware of our "free" policies
> and uploading images to Commons?
>
> Is there a requirement that the websites allowed to use InstantCommons
> host free content? Or can every Tom Dick or Harry use InstantCommons?

It's just a software feature. We might not use it. I would strongly
suggest that we not use it until we have good answers to these
questions.

As far as handling new users goes, ... we need to improve that for
ourselves even without the extra pressure of instantcommons.  Many
things have been proposed, few implemented.

As far as free content or not sites goes, It would be be very
interesting when some of our commons users start enforcing the
copyleft terms of their images licenses against sites using instant
commons images in sites which are non-free.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Daniel Kinzler | 2 Apr 2007 02:56
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> Ideally, the image would be replaced by a warning icons, and local admins can
>> decide if they want to delete, or "really" import their cached copy, and take
>> responsibility.
> 
> It would be in our interest to block access to sites which continue to
> distribute copyright infringements which we have deleted.

How about things we delete for violation of policy, not copyright (e.g. NC/ND
stuff)? Or as dupes? It would be reasonable for people to want to keep using
such images even after we deleted them.

-- Daniel
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Erik Moeller | 2 Apr 2007 03:04
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> No idea why Erik didn't post here as well, as if we're not interested :)

Because the feature still needs quite a bit of work, and the full
specifications at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/InstantCommons answer
some of the questions that would inevitably come up. We've already
dealt with these questions, as well, when we originally proposed the
project to WMF and the Board of Trustees. I will answer them again in
some depth when the feature has been implemented up to specs.
--

-- 
Peace & Love,
Erik

DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 2 Apr 2007 03:08
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@...> wrote:
> How about things we delete for violation of policy, not copyright (e.g. NC/ND
> stuff)? Or as dupes? It would be reasonable for people to want to keep using
> such images even after we deleted them.

The dupe issue will hopefully be solved after we get image redirects. ;)

Even in the case of NC/ND material we don't want our name being
associated with such files.

Other policy issues, sure, but this isn't trivially addressable so
long as all deletions look the same to the software. :)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 2 Apr 2007 03:27
Picon
Gravatar

Re: InstantCommons demo

On 4/1/07, Erik Moeller <erik@...> wrote:
> Because the feature still needs quite a bit of work, and the full
> specifications at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/InstantCommons answer
> some of the questions that would inevitably come up. We've already
> dealt with these questions, as well, when we originally proposed the
> project to WMF and the Board of Trustees. I will answer them again in
> some depth when the feature has been implemented up to specs.

Yes, and I whined about the copyright issues then, and I've yet to see
fully satisfactory answers.

With around 200k out of 1.5million images deleted thus far and more
every day,I do not believe commons is yet at a point of maturity where
the automatic redistribution of our images would be a socially
responsible action.

In order to get there I think we need to take at least two major steps
forward in the quality of our work. We're making good progress but,
like all things, it takes time.

We need to be mindful that one of the major differentiators between
commons and other user contributed online image repositories is our
responsiveness to copyright infringement concerns. We are remarkably
more responsive than most other user contributed image repositories,
and and automated image-live-mirror system without automated
revocation puts that status in jeopardy.

It can be argued that we're already have the mirror problem with text,
but text has a long term trend of far fewer copyright complaints per
item than media, and with things like automated text copyright
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane