headers
Alex G | 1 Jul 10:09
Picon

Re: Commons and proxies

If I recall, developer Werdna developed a TorBlock extension (as it
was called) which could be used to softblock tors/other proxies. It
wouldn't deal with everything, but now that SUL is up, constructive IP
editing would probably be going down. Has anyone looked at bringing
this in on Commons?

-Giggy

On 7/1/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...> wrote:
> Wikimedia Commons, like many Wikimedia Projects,  doesn't generally
> block anonymizing (i.e.  services/servers that could be used to hide
> your identity) proxies unless  they are causing problems.
>
> Since commons is less often a target for troublemakers than some other
> projects with the same policy, we often seem to have much fewer
> proxies blocked. This also important because of the blocking practices
> of some governments.  Generally our practices do not seem to cause us
> too much trouble, but there are some implications.
>
> For one, it means that proxy-blocked users on other projects can get a
> 'second life' out of their proxies by harassing their target projects
> via commons.  It also enables various forms of split project
> sock-puppetry, and the larger project block logs become handy proxy
> directories for troublemakers willing to go after the smaller
> projects.
>
> It may eventually become a PR issue with our customer projects, ...
> they can't be happy when their troublemakers come back via commons. It
> certainly would be if we ever stopped our practice of blocking
> troublemaking proxies once they were found.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Siebrand Mazeland | 1 Jul 10:13
Picon
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Commons and proxies

See http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Version

It is active on Commons (as it is on all other Wikimedia wikis)

Siebrand 

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: commons-l-bounces@...
[mailto:commons-l-bounces@...] Namens Alex G
Verzonden: dinsdag 1 juli 2008 10:09
Aan: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
Onderwerp: Re: [Commons-l] Commons and proxies

If I recall, developer Werdna developed a TorBlock extension (as it was
called) which could be used to softblock tors/other proxies. It wouldn't
deal with everything, but now that SUL is up, constructive IP editing would
probably be going down. Has anyone looked at bringing this in on Commons?

-Giggy
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Gerard | 1 Jul 14:44
Picon
Gravatar

IMSLP reopens

http://imslp.org/wiki/IMSLP:Open_Letter_(Reopening)

- d.
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brianna Laugher | 2 Jul 19:00
Picon
Gravatar

Institutional stats reports

Hi all,

Last week I went to a conference hosted by Creative Commons Australia
<http://creativecommons.org.au/australasiancommons>. One of the talks
was "Play at Powerhouse" by Sebastian Chan, the manager of web
services at Powerhouse Museum. They are one of the institutions
participating in Flickr's "The Commons" -
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/powerhouse_museum/>.

A lot of their images have been transferred to Commons. I sat up in my
chair fairly well when Seb raised this as an "issue". From his
perspective, this is a problem, because once the images leave Flickr,
they lose the ability to easily track and report usage. As an
institution they use these stats to justify the effort of making their
content digitally available (and geocoding it, and maintaining the
Flickr community, etc).

There are some screenshots showing Flickr stats in this post:
<http://searchengineland.com/071213-161815.php>

Making institutions feel more comfortable with their content appearing
on Wikimedia Commons is obviously a good thing for us. We have
pageview stats and checkusage and who knows what other exciting stuff.

I think we should develop an automated process for creating
institutional stats reports and then contact the institutions whose
works we use and offer them this report - starting with the Powerhouse
Museum.

In fact, I don't see a reason not to make the reports public. They
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 15 comments |
headers
Bryan Tong Minh | 2 Jul 19:08
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Institutional stats reports

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> I think we should develop an automated process for creating
> institutional stats reports and then contact the institutions whose
> works we use and offer them this report - starting with the Powerhouse
> Museum.
>
Sounds like a good idea. Combine CheckUsage + domas' Wikistats and you
have some pretty awesome views per image stats. In fact I don't see a
reason (except performance) to not make such stats available per
image. And then stuff like total views for images in Category:X

Bryan
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Florian Straub | 2 Jul 19:47
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Institutional stats reports

Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh@...> wrote on wed, 2 jul 2008 
19:08:45 +0200:

> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 7:00 PM, Brianna Laugher
> <brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
>> I think we should develop an automated process for creating
>> institutional stats reports and then contact the institutions whose
>> works we use and offer them this report - starting with the Powerhouse
>> Museum.
>>
> Sounds like a good idea. Combine CheckUsage + domas' Wikistats and you
> have some pretty awesome views per image stats. In fact I don't see a
> reason (except performance) to not make such stats available per
> image. And then stuff like total views for images in Category:X

... or stats per uploader or per Flickr user ... sounds great.

Regards,

Flo
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 2 Jul 20:08
Picon

Re: Institutional stats reports

On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Brianna Laugher
[snip]
> Thoughts? Good idea or waste of time?

It's a good idea to connect the page view stats to provide stats per
image and offer aggregates.

But at the same time we don't want to further the belief that views
directly relate to value.  Providing the right image to the right
person has a lot more value than simply showing an image to lots and
lots of people.

When an image is placed in some obscure Wikipedia article it might not
get a lot of page views, but when it is seen it is probably of
substantial interest and value, far more so than yet-another-image
scrolling by in a flickr feed.

Wikipedia sees an absolutely enormous amount of traffic but it is
distributed over an enormous number of articles, so many pages get
fairly few views... but if you took away all the low traffic pages
Wikipedia would lose its value almost completely.  When something like
a powerhouse museum image becomes part of a Wikipedia it becomes more
than a single image, it helps complete this enormous and widely used
reference work, and its contribution is far greater than the sum of
its pageviews.

Just a thought....
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Brianna Laugher | 3 Jul 03:16
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Institutional stats reports

2008/7/3 Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...>:
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:00 PM, Brianna Laugher
> [snip]
>> Thoughts? Good idea or waste of time?
>
> It's a good idea to connect the page view stats to provide stats per
> image and offer aggregates.
>
> But at the same time we don't want to further the belief that views
> directly relate to value.  Providing the right image to the right
> person has a lot more value than simply showing an image to lots and
> lots of people.

I'm sure when they explain that to the people holding the purse
strings, they'll be understanding :P

Page views hardly tell the whole story, but currently they get nada from us.

cheers
Brianna

--

-- 
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Brianna Laugher | 3 Jul 09:05
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Institutional stats reports

2008/7/3 Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh@...>:
> Sounds like a good idea. Combine CheckUsage + domas' Wikistats and you
> have some pretty awesome views per image stats. In fact I don't see a
> reason (except performance) to not make such stats available per
> image. And then stuff like total views for images in Category:X

Is Commons data in wikistats? I had a feeling it wasn't?

Brianna

--

-- 
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/
Permalink | Reply | 8 comments |
headers
Gregory Maxwell | 3 Jul 09:28
Picon

Re: Institutional stats reports

On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 3:05 AM, Brianna Laugher
<brianna.laugher@...> wrote:
> 2008/7/3 Bryan Tong Minh <bryan.tongminh@...>:
>> Sounds like a good idea. Combine CheckUsage + domas' Wikistats and you
>> have some pretty awesome views per image stats. In fact I don't see a
>> reason (except performance) to not make such stats available per
>> image. And then stuff like total views for images in Category:X
>
> Is Commons data in wikistats? I had a feeling it wasn't?

Most of the images views aren't on commons.. they are on Wikipedia.
What is being suggested is determine where images are used and add up
the counters for those pages.
Permalink | Reply | 7 comments |

Gmane