I'm on Polish Wikimedian Meetup in Białowieża, tomorrow we will have SVG Workshops, so I will try to make a brainstorm about it ;) AJF/WarX _______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
I bet this was news to you. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brion Vibber <brion@...> Date: 01-May-2007 16:03 Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Commons deletion issue To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l@...> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Raimond Spekking wrote: > Mark Clements schrieb: >> If there is a policy on Commons as described above, then it clearly isn't >> being followed. If this is normal behaviour then the case is very strong >> for making local copies of any images you want to use prominently... > > > Duplicates are marked with > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Duplicate (Note that duplication isn't a good reason to delete something from Commons, since by definition Commons is a repository.) - -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGN1bRwRnhpk1wk44RAoG6AKDbR53puGr9kDHvoO4wMSvPenRRpwCfYGJ4(Continue reading)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:40:46 -0400 From: "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell@...> Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Wikipedia-l] Commons deletion issue To: "Wikimedia Commons Discussion List" <commons-l@...> Message-ID: <e692861c0704300940v1c9e182atf33ec24d717332f7@...> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > On 4/30/07, Daniel Kinzler <daniel@...> wrote: > > Note that commons admins often rely on my CheckUsage tool to check where an > > image is used. Due to the way to database is fed from the parser, this might > > miss some uses, though. Specifically, it may miss any ''conditional'' use of an > > image, i.e. used directly or indirectly inside a {{#if}} or {{#switch}} clause. > > I don't think this is accurate. If an image is actually *displayed* on > a page it should show up, although only on the page which the image is > being displayed on. If some use of parserfunctions is causing an image > to not currently be displayed it will not show up. > > What doesn't show up are images pulled in via javascript or css. There > is no way we can expect the mediawiki software or commons admins to be > aware of these cases automatically. Even local images used from CSS do > not show up in file links. > > For this latter case the only thing we can do is advise people who > include images via css to note this fact on the image page, and ask > >that the image page be protected. I do this for enwiki every once in a > >while. >(Continue reading)
On 24/04/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@...> wrote: > I've just gotten another email request for permission to use one of my > photos. Of course they have permission, but I'm struck by how much > trouble people always seem to go to find an address to send to. I'm > thinking that we should suggest to commoners that they post direct > contact info if they're comfortable with that, at least on user page if > not on every image - I think there's only been one time that a reuser > found mediawiki's secret email-to-user option and contacted me that way. Email-to-user was great... before we locked it down and required both parties to have confirmed accounts. I wonder - could we patch it so that someone can set, in their preferences, the option to allow use of special:emailuser by non-registered users? -- -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@...
On 03/05/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray@...> wrote: > On 24/04/07, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@...> wrote: > > I've just gotten another email request for permission to use one of my > > photos. Of course they have permission, but I'm struck by how much > > trouble people always seem to go to find an address to send to. I'm > > thinking that we should suggest to commoners that they post direct > > contact info if they're comfortable with that, at least on user page if > > not on every image - I think there's only been one time that a reuser > > found mediawiki's secret email-to-user option and contacted me that way. > Email-to-user was great... before we locked it down and required both > parties to have confirmed accounts. I wonder - could we patch it so > that someone can set, in their preferences, the option to allow use of > special:emailuser by non-registered users? I stick it on my userpage ... - d.
On 4/23/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org > wrote:
Please remember that as soon as the organisation "endorses" any person
to contribute content to the projects, it puts itself in a "publisher"
kind of position, which we need to avoid at all costs, since the
organisation is *not* a publisher.
I don't see how endorsement leads to publisher statute. One of the missions of the foundation and of the local chapters is to help users from Wikimedia projects to develop and create free content. Taking advantage of Wikimedia / Wikipedia popularity to get accreditations that will allow users to create free content doesn't mean this content will be published on Wikimedia websites, nor it will be published on Wikimedia websites on behalf of Wikimedia.
--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
"Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
_______________________________________________ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@... http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
K P a écrit : > Why do people have to be "endorsed" to develop and create free > content? I am rather proud of Wikipedia's celebrity photographer, who > politely takes pictures for Wikipedia articles without any > endorsement, just like the best of Wikipedia's editors, politely > creating accurate content on encyclopedia-worthy topics, without any > endorsement from Wikipedia. Isn't this what Wikipedia is? Because some pictures cannot be taken unless one has been granted special access conditions to a "press area". It is for instance very difficult to take pictures of the speakers at a political rally unless you're really in the front, which is reserved for the press and VIPs. The same applies to a variety of events, or even to photographs of the inside of buildings, etc. Practical example: members of Wikimedia France took photographs of presidential candidates during the election run. In some cases, they were simply shooting from the public (and thus had to deal with e.g. getting pushed when taking photos and the like), but the best quality photographs were taken from the "press area", and they got access to this area because Wikimedia France asked them to be authorized to enter this area. (At least for major candidates; minor candidates who do around 1% of votes tend to have more informal procedures.) Organizers of such events do not generally grant press access to random individuals. They want professionals, with a press card (we cannot help there, at least in France, since press cards are only for professional journalists), or at least, if we're lucky, they want an organization to endorse the photographer. Think of it this way: organizers cannot let every Tom, Dick and Harry go to front row and take pictures, for practical reasons. In the past, the criterion for admittance was "being a press photographer", which meant one doing press photos as a professional job. In the era of user-generated content, blogs, wikis etc. this criterion is becoming somewhat of an annoyance. On the other hand, I can understand that organizers and officials don't want hundreds of amateur photographers rushing in with their compact cameras... Wikimedia France talked about this issue to various officials and organizers, and everybody seems to agree that there is a problem. We've been asked to provide proposals. We'll have to think about this seriously.
On 04/05/07, David Monniaux <David.Monniaux@...> wrote: > Organizers of such events do not generally grant press access to random > individuals. They want professionals, with a press card (we cannot help > there, at least in France, since press cards are only for professional > journalists), or at least, if we're lucky, they want an organization to > endorse the photographer. > Think of it this way: organizers cannot let every Tom, Dick and Harry go > to front row and take pictures, for practical reasons. In the past, the > criterion for admittance was "being a press photographer", which meant > one doing press photos as a professional job. In the era of > user-generated content, blogs, wikis etc. this criterion is becoming > somewhat of an annoyance. On the other hand, I can understand that > organizers and officials don't want hundreds of amateur photographers > rushing in with their compact cameras... > Wikimedia France talked about this issue to various officials and > organizers, and everybody seems to agree that there is a problem. We've > been asked to provide proposals. We'll have to think about this seriously. FWIW, the prospective Wikimedia UK (which is still waiting on Delphine getting around to returning a signed copy of the agreement) has expressly planned to accredit people as it helps free content. Because we're *so* not the publisher of WMF-hosted content and have no leverage over them. - d.
On 4/23/07, Delphine Ménard <notafishz@...> wrote: > The answer is very simple: For those countries where accreditation is > a legal matter (France is one of them), the Foundation, or the > chapters, cannot and will not give this accreditation. > > For those countries where the whole accreditation process is more > open, then it could be imagined that the Wikinews community recognize > some people as "wiki journalists" or something. > > Please remember that as soon as the organisation "endorses" any person > to contribute content to the projects, it puts itself in a "publisher" > kind of position, which we need to avoid at all costs, since the > organisation is *not* a publisher. > Would it be possible for the WMF to make a deal with an actual publisher? They could, say, give us a press pass in return for us giving them a free license to use the photographs. The St. Petersburg Times is run by a non-profit and is right down the street. Maybe they'd be willing to hook up the WMF with a press pass to use for events they weren't sending anyone to anyway? Just a thought. I don't know much about how these things work. Anthony
On 04/05/07, Anthony <wikilegal@...> wrote: > > Please remember that as soon as the organisation "endorses" any person > > to contribute content to the projects, it puts itself in a "publisher" > > kind of position, which we need to avoid at all costs, since the > > organisation is *not* a publisher. > > Would it be possible for the WMF to make a deal with an actual > publisher? They could, say, give us a press pass in return for us > giving them a free license to use the photographs. The St. Petersburg > Times is run by a non-profit and is right down the street. Maybe > they'd be willing to hook up the WMF with a press pass to use for > events they weren't sending anyone to anyway? > > Just a thought. I don't know much about how these things work. That's a pretty good idea, actually. We find the publisher a volunteer who we know is a decent person - just the sort of job for our shiny new Volunteer Coordinator - the volunteer agrees with the publisher that the material will be freely licensed*, the publisher issues accreditation and lets the material flow in (and out). -- -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@...
RSS Feed3 | |
|---|---|
6 | |
19 | |
16 | |
60 | |
41 | |
23 | |
20 | |
38 | |
207 | |
14 | |
39 | |
93 | |
13 | |
7 | |
16 | |
105 | |
39 | |
29 | |
39 | |
39 | |
87 | |
16 | |
67 | |
62 | |
39 | |
5 | |
51 | |
31 | |
93 | |
60 | |
31 | |
164 | |
40 | |
24 | |
102 | |
48 | |
99 | |
103 | |
82 | |
36 | |
86 | |
145 | |
79 | |
47 | |
100 | |
51 | |
110 | |
84 | |
164 | |
157 | |
209 | |
202 | |
162 | |
335 | |
368 | |
101 | |
112 | |
122 | |
147 | |
153 | |
119 | |
119 | |
261 | |
133 | |
94 | |
149 | |
56 | |
134 | |
44 | |
53 | |
4 | |
6 | |
7 | |
9 | |
2 | |
20 | |
41 | |
3 | |
5 | |
30 | |
3 | |
6 | |
7 | |
8 | |
9 | |
5 |
