headers
Brianna Laugher | 1 Jun 03:56
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Gallerypreview

On 01/06/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@...> wrote:
> FYI: Thanks to Yuri, who implemented a new api function,
> [[MediaWiki:Gallerypreview.js]] can now preview galleries as well as
> categories. Guess it can keep the name then...

Very awesome. Go Yuri.
A tiny request... can it only include listings in the main namespace?

cheers
Brianna
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Magnus Manske | 1 Jun 10:06
Gravatar

Re: Gallerypreview

On 6/1/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> On 01/06/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@...> wrote:
> > FYI: Thanks to Yuri, who implemented a new api function,
> > [[MediaWiki:Gallerypreview.js]] can now preview galleries as well as
> > categories. Guess it can keep the name then...
>
> Very awesome. Go Yuri.
> A tiny request... can it only include listings in the main namespace?

Done.

Magnus
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Guillaume Paumier | 3 Jun 09:35
Picon
Gravatar

Fwd: [Foundation-l] Decision on Creative Commons 3.0

Forwarding this to commons-l as Commons is the mainly concerned project. There have been answers on foundation-l you might want to look at too.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Peter Halasz <email-VQIkyuM6Y4DYtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>
Date: Jun 3, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: [Foundation-l] Decision on Creative Commons 3.0
To: foundation-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org

Mike Linksvayer (Creative Commons staff) and Jimbo Wales have left
comments in favour of accepting Creative Commons 3.0 into our own
commons, but ultimately the decision seems to be up to the Wikimedia
Foundation Board of Trustees, as no one else is willing (or able) to
make a final decision. The issues have been discussed ad nauseam, and
it's decision time. Please make one soon.

Peter Halasz [[user:Pengo]]

Discussion below copied from:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing#Creative_Commons_3.0_Licenses_.28again.29

I invited Creative Commons staff member Mike Linksvayer to weigh in on
the discussion of CC-3.0, and he's left comments. The conversation has
again gone stale since then: [[Commons talk:Licensing/Creative Commons
3.0]]. When are we going to move towards allowing CC-3.0 licenses, and
who makes the decision? Are we just going to ignore it while there are
lingering doubts? For people who want to allow Wikipedia to use their
material, it's enough trouble to explain that they have to use BY or
BY-SA licenses, and not the others listed on creativecommons.org. But
it's just going too far having to say "you need to hunt down an
outdated creative commons license... one which isn't even listed at
creativecommons.org". The 3.0 licenses create no new conditions which
don't already exist in law. Let's take them on already. [those are my
thoughts, not CC's] Pengo 05:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think the real important question is "who makes the decision?"
But yes, it seems to me that the don't accept them camp can always win
by stalling. Meanwhile, more and more free content appears on the web
under CC-3.0 that we can't use. --Selket 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l


--
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
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Sherool | 4 Jun 17:56
Picon
Picon

Google's experimantal image recognition search

This might slightly off topic, though if someone uses Google image search  
to track down free licensed images or something it might be usefull. Seems  
Google is experimenting with image recognition in theyr image search, so  
now you can for example limit searches to human faces only. There is no  
GUI option for it yet, but just add &imgtype=face at the end of the search  
URL to see the results. Try this search sting for example:  
<http://images.google.com/images?rls=en&q=site%3Awikimedia.org&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&imgtype=face>

When will get get this kind of technology in the MediaWiki search? :P

Found the full storry here:  
<http://blog.outer-court.com/archive/2007-05-28-n84.html>

--

-- 
[[:en:User:Sherool]]
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Platonides | 4 Jun 23:41
Picon

Re: Google's experimantal image recognition search

Sherool wrote:
> This might slightly off topic, though if someone uses Google image search  
> to track down free licensed images or something it might be usefull. Seems  
> Google is experimenting with image recognition in theyr image search, so  
> now you can for example limit searches to human faces only. There is no  
> GUI option for it yet, but just add &imgtype=face at the end of the search  
> URL to see the results. Try this search sting for example:  
> <http://images.google.com/images?rls=en&q=site%3Awikimedia.org&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&imgtype=face>

Cool. What other thinks are recognised? Whatever i try, i get the same 
result set, the same as if imgtype is not provided.

> When will get get this kind of technology in the MediaWiki search? :P

We're waiting for you to code it ;-)
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
cohesion | 4 Jun 23:49

Re: Google's experimantal image recognition search

On 6/4/07, Platonides <Platonides@...> wrote:
> Sherool wrote:
> > This might slightly off topic, though if someone uses Google image search
> > to track down free licensed images or something it might be usefull. Seems
> > Google is experimenting with image recognition in theyr image search, so
> > now you can for example limit searches to human faces only. There is no
> > GUI option for it yet, but just add &imgtype=face at the end of the search
> > URL to see the results. Try this search sting for example:
> > <http://images.google.com/images?rls=en&q=site%3Awikimedia.org&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi&imgtype=face>
>
> Cool. What other thinks are recognised? Whatever i try, i get the same
> result set, the same as if imgtype is not provided.

From what I've seen online that is the only one that is recognized
now, if you find a new one people would be happy to know it :D

Judson
[[:en:User:Cohesion]]
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Magnus Manske | 10 Jun 00:17
Gravatar

Categories and galleries

(Apologies is the following suggestion has been made before.)

There has been much said about the duplication of effort by
maintaining a gallery and a category for a single topic. It was said
to abolish the one or the other, to no avail, as both have their use:
* Categories are good for organizing things in a hierarchical order,
which can be done on the image page, and not on some remote place
(gallery page)
* Galleries are good for structuring files of a topic while
maintaining that these files "belong together" on a single page

Suggestions towards replacing both with some tagging system have been
rather vague and far-in-the-futurish (at least, implementation-wise).

As an intermediate measure, I propose something like this: When
viewing a gallery page, MediaWiki checks if there is a category of the
same name. If this is the case, it adds a new section to the gallery
page (dynamically for viewing, not altering the source text!), showing
all the images in the category that are /not/ already shown in the
gallery. The section could be called "Other", "Misc", "Additional" or
the like. That way, the user would always see all images on the topic
when visiting the gallery page; it would also allow editors to see
what new images to the topic should be included into the gallery.

This should be relatively easy to implement (maybe including a new
magic word to prevent this mechanism on certain  gallery pages). I
could throw some JavaScript at it, but I'd prefer an internal
solution, if this feature would be wanted.

The reverse mechanism (display all images from the gallery page in the
category) might be more problematic, as images from navigational
elements could show up in the category. However, it might become a
toolserver toy ("what images in a gallery are not in the matching
category?").

Thought? Comments? Bullets? ;-)

Magnus
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |
headers
Robin Schwab | 10 Jun 13:01
Picon
Favicon

Re: Meet our photographers page?

> Yeah, I was after something else entirely: examples of people who get
> sales from their GFDL uploads.

Roland Zumbühl is certainly one of these photographers. He is not on the 
list but uploaded over 1000 high quality pics. He sells the pictures in 
high resolution too.

see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picswiss_project

Regards

Robin
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
White Cat | 10 Jun 15:22
Picon

Re: Categories and galleries

We need to use both.

Puting images to categories is problematic in many ways:

  • We would have to watch every image description page for vandalism rather than just galleries
  • It doesn't really offer a description per image so it is not very helpful in explaining why image is significant.
Idealy all images should be in galleries and all galleries be in categories. People tend to dump images to categories which is fine but those images should be "moved" to galleries.

        - White Cat

On 6/10/07, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske-gM/Ye1E23mwN+BqQ9rBEUg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
(Apologies is the following suggestion has been made before.)

There has been much said about the duplication of effort by
maintaining a gallery and a category for a single topic. It was said
to abolish the one or the other, to no avail, as both have their use:
* Categories are good for organizing things in a hierarchical order,
which can be done on the image page, and not on some remote place
(gallery page)
* Galleries are good for structuring files of a topic while
maintaining that these files "belong together" on a single page

Suggestions towards replacing both with some tagging system have been
rather vague and far-in-the-futurish (at least, implementation-wise).

As an intermediate measure, I propose something like this: When
viewing a gallery page, MediaWiki checks if there is a category of the
same name. If this is the case, it adds a new section to the gallery
page (dynamically for viewing, not altering the source text!), showing
all the images in the category that are /not/ already shown in the
gallery. The section could be called "Other", "Misc", "Additional" or
the like. That way, the user would always see all images on the topic
when visiting the gallery page; it would also allow editors to see
what new images to the topic should be included into the gallery.

This should be relatively easy to implement (maybe including a new
magic word to prevent this mechanism on certain  gallery pages). I
could throw some JavaScript at it, but I'd prefer an internal
solution, if this feature would be wanted.


The reverse mechanism (display all images from the gallery page in the
category) might be more problematic, as images from navigational
elements could show up in the category. However, it might become a
toolserver toy ("what images in a gallery are not in the matching
category?").

Thought? Comments? Bullets? ;-)

Magnus

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Artur Fijałkowski | 10 Jun 19:01
Picon

Re: Meet our photographers page?

2007/6/10, Robin Schwab <contact <at> robinschwab.ch>:
> > Yeah, I was after something else entirely: examples of people who get
> > sales from their GFDL uploads.
>
> Roland Zumbühl is certainly one of these photographers. He is not on the
> list but uploaded over 1000 high quality pics. He sells the pictures in
> high resolution too.
>
> see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picswiss_project

Maybe they are high-quality, but in the first place they are low-res :(

AJF/WarX
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Permalink | Reply | 9 comments |

Gmane