Commons-l February 2007

40 participants
31 discussions

Anglo-Saxonisation of the commons
by Patrick-Emil Zörner 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

I am quite appalled about how things have a nasty tendency to a nasty outcome on commons. München is being moved to Munich, Praha is moved to Prague,... and all on a specious kind of based argumentation. I know how the cities are called. I have seen the traffic signs! The cities are actually called München, Praha,... I read e.g. that [München, Germany] would look silly. Yes it does. That is why it should have been [München, Deutschland] in the first place with the redirect being [Munich, Germany] or even a disambiguation on [Munich] as it already is on the en-WP. What was clear to many people in the beginnig of commons now gets overthrown and people keenly start their bots. Moreover I do not mind having [東京] as log as there is a redirect on [Tokyo], [Tokio] etc. As far as I remember commons was planed for all projects to coexist but not to assimilate them until a bad english gets the upper hand. I am appalled about this and do not know if I carry on in this pile of shards. disappointed greetings paddy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen Massenmails. http://mail.yahoo.com

13 16

Fwd: search manipulation
by Brianna Laugher 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

Could we do this to add a 'Mayflower' button? cheers Brianna user:pfctdayelise ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: min Sui <wm.suisui(a)gmail.com> Date: 20-Feb-2007 15:39 Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Support WMF via GoodSearch To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Hi. I made a quick javaScript hack for Special:Search from french wikipedia -> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Monobook.js this shows like this -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search it's shows this way. 1. input word(s) to search box 2. click search and select search engine you like, will make result search from paticuler project. ( my script points to ja.wikipedia.org you can change it ;) and the source is here -> http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Common.js anyone can use it freely. thanks. suisui suisui(a)gmail.com 2007/2/15, the wub <thewub.wiki(a)googlemail.com>: > You can also use a link like > http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=812661<http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=xxx>that > links to the search page with WMF pre-selected, which will be good to > promote this. > ** <http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=xxx> > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

3 5

One new and one old tool
by Florian Straub 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

Hi there, I just wanted to share two of tools with you: * Flinfo fetches a complete picture description from Flickr by a given picture ID like 151898652: http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/flinfo.php * WikiBlame searches different versions of an article for one specific string: http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php I just wanted to hear your opinions and to tell you, that I'm always open for suggestions and translations of WikiBlame :)) Best regards, Flo PS: I know that fetching the license from flickr as well would be perfect .... I'm working on it ....

4 10

Raising the connection limit for tangotango
by Tangotango 21 Feb '07

21 Feb '07

Larry, thanks for posting this. Having investigated the situation, it appears that the problem was due to a case of bad coding on my part. I have changed the SQL queries, and most searches should complete faster now, so 15 simultaneous connections should *probably* be okay. If, however, anybody sees the "Oops, too many users" error message quite frequently, please tell me, and I will ask DaB. to up the limit for my account. Cheers, Tangotango On Tue Feb 20 14:13:47 UTC 2007, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip /> But unfortunately it's bumping into the 15 connection limit already. <snip /> Please consider raising that limit, a lot. Not sure how much but a lot because commons searches are quite frequent.

1 0

Raising the connection limit for tangotango
by Larry Pieniazek 20 Feb '07

20 Feb '07

Hi all! Apologies if this was already asked, but TangoTango wrote a very nifty search tool, mayflower. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tangotango/mayflower/search.php?q=mayflower&t=n See it here on the test wiki: http://test.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search (you may need to be logged in) It's really great, and it got added to commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search But unfortunately it's bumping into the 15 connection limit already. --- Advanced search Please wait, searching for "mayflower"... Warning: mysqli::mysqli() [function.mysqli-mysqli]: (42000/1226): User 'tangotango' has exceeded the 'max_user_connections' resource (current value: 15) in /home/tangotango/public_html/mayflower/search.php on line 258 Warning: mysqli::query() [function.mysqli-query]: Couldn't fetch mysqli in /home/tangotango/public_html/mayflower/search.php on line 287 Warning: main() [function.main]: Couldn't fetch mysqli in /home/tangotango/public_html/mayflower/search.php on line 469 Error: Warning: mysqli::close() [function.mysqli-close]: Couldn't fetch mysqli in /home/tangotango/public_html/mayflower/search.php on line 472 ---- Please consider raising that limit, a lot. Not sure how much but a lot because commons searches are quite frequent. Thanks! Larry Pieniazek Work mail: lpieniaz at us.ibm.com Hobby mail: lar at miltontrainworks.com > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 00:25:47 +0100 > From: "DaB." <wp(a)daniel.baur4.info> > Subject: [Toolserver-l] New limitation of mysql-connections > To: Toolserver-ML <toolserver-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: <1171754747.3681.2.camel(a)DanielX.intern.baur4.info> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Hello all, > > I created a new limitation of 15 mysql-connections at the > same time by a user (after a user flooded mysql with a few > dutzend connection a few time ago). > > If someone need more connections, please mail me, the limit > can set per user. > > Have fun :). > > Sincerly,

1 0

Fwd: Commons request for input: policy on automatic image replacement
by Brianna Laugher 20 Feb '07

20 Feb '07

I sent this to foundation-l. Input from Commons folks obviously welcome... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> Date: 20-Feb-2007 01:35 Subject: Commons request for input: policy on automatic image replacement To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Hello, (If your project doesn't have a CommonsTicker... GET ONE... http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker and if nobody maintains it... well don't complain you were never informed :P ) CommonsDelinker is a Wikimedia-wide bot designed to remove image redlinks from pages after an image has been deleted at Commons. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker At the moment it is in the "testing" stage of image "relinking" -- replacing one image with another. I want to get some input from communities about under what circumstances it would be acceptable for Commons to use the bot for "relinking". There are several reasons why replacing images might be desired: 1. Avoid conflicts with local image of the same name (bug 889, 2717) [although usually this would be done at the local wiki rather than Commons, but if the Commons image is poorly named, it can be appropriate] 2. Rename images: as redirects don't work, the only option to upload under the new name (bug 709, 4470) 3. Consolidate use of duplicate images at just one of them 4. Replace an image with a distinct, "improved" version I guess (hope) 1 and 2 are not controversial. So I want to talk a bit about 3 and 4. Regarding 3: some people feel that there is no need to consolidate duplicate images together. While it is true that there is no argument to do this for "disk space reasons", consider it like a 'fork' of the image. We don't allow forks of articles. One reason, for sure, has to do with NPOV, but another reason is just about efficiency and the natural human tendency to sort, collate, collect and organise. It makes sense to have all the info about one thing in one place, whether that is a topic (article) or an image. Now regarding 4. This is the first point where the image being replaced is not a true duplicate to the original. The most contentious point has been where images are converted from raster (GIF, JPG, PNG) to vector (SVG) format. I don't want to hash out the details of a PNG vs SVG debate here. Some PNGs are superior to SVGs, some SVGs are superior to PNGs. I want to establish: what process should take place before a bot replacement like this is acceptable? Because it's a bot, I want Commons to have really clear guidelines about when it is OK to use it, to avoid disrupting local projects. Currently, such images are tagged with {{superseded}} and listed at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Superseded . This page is quite backlogged (nearly 5 months, over 5000 items in [[category:superseded]]) and almost no-one works on it (since our copyvios are also backlogged, and they are more urgent, this is OK, IMO). Note: we have {{superseded}}, which usually means the old one will be nominated for deletion, and we also have {{vector version available}}, which merely advertises the existence of a vector file and does not imply the old one should be deleted. So basically my question is, assuming someone putting a {{superseded}} tag on an image appears on your local CommonsTicker, how long is it acceptable to wait before we replace such images? A week, a fortnight, a month? What should consensus look like in such discussions? Since we don't have to delete things for copyright reasons, is *one* person objecting enough to keep the image? What if that person is the uploader? What reasons should ensure an image gets kept? Here are some main ones I know of: * Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all and let local projects decide which to use. * Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but without special treatment). * Errors in SVG rendering (there are many in bugzilla) * PNGs as source files - should be kept for historical record (luckily we can undelete now, this is not such a big deal, but still something to keep in mind) So, please take this as an opportunity to describe the most open and accessible way Commons can work with your project, and how you would like to see it operate to best benefit your project in this regard. cheers, Brianna user:pfctdayelise

4 5

Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] Commons request for input: policy on automatic image replacement
by Gregory Maxwell 20 Feb '07

20 Feb '07

On 2/19/07, Brianna Laugher <brianna.laugher(a)gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > Here are some main ones I know of: > * Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are > TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to > rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all > and let local projects decide which to use. I don't think we should make it a policy to always keep extra images, we should do so only when there is an honest and reasonable disagreement over which image is better. Many times there is no disagreement, and we shouldn't keep around many useless near duplicates just because. So, for example, if a version is unused on other projects there should be no problem. And in other cases we should make sure we have a nice long tagged VFD cycle so everyone who cares can see it on commonsticker. > * Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering > in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but > without special treatment). If the small PNG is not index colors then it hasn't been hacked to work around IE's bugs. Like above we shouldn't keep an image unless it is actually serving a purpose. Working around IE bugs is a purpose, but only if they are actually being used for that. I'm almost tempted to say that IE bug workarounds should be removed from commons. Perhaps some projects would choose not to work around IE bugs, and yet we are shoving these workaround images on them?

4 5

Commons Picture of the Year 2006
by Bryan Tong Minh 16 Feb '07

16 Feb '07

The Commons Picture of the Year 2006 will be chosen in February. Participate by voting for a picture out of the featured pictures promoted in 2006. This vote is open to every established Wikimedian. The election has two phases. In the first phase, taking place from 1st to 14th February 2007, the ten best pictures will be chosen among all 2006 Featured Pictures. At the end of phase 1, the top 10 images by number of votes will go to phase 2 (the final). Only images with 3 or more votes are eligible for phase 2. During the final, to take place from 15th February to 28th February, the Commons Picture of the Year 2006, and the two runners-up, will be chosen from the eligible images. The three winning pictures will be displayed on the Main Page and enter the History Books of Wikimedia Commons forever :-) Participate! The election is open from tomorrow on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2006 !

3 6

Definition of Free Cultural Works 1.0 Released
by Erik Moeller 13 Feb '07

13 Feb '07

Hello all! I'm happy to announce that version 1.0 of the Definition of Free Cultural Works has been released. This definition is directly referenced in the draft Wikimedia licensing policy and is likely to become our future guideline to distinguish free and non-free content. The definition itself is developed using a wiki process & a group of moderators (see below), so I'd appreciate "bug reports" on the wiki. Specifically for the Wikimedia Commons folks: We're developing a set of buttons to identify free licenses, using our own "Free Cultural Works" logo. Any contribution here would be welcome. Full announcement & links below. Please forward & distribute to relevant mailing lists. - - - - New "Definition of Free Cultural Works" Challenges Authors to Rethink Copyright Law ''The Internet, February 14, 2007.'' A diverse group of writers has released the first version of the "Definition of Free Cultural Works." The authors have identified a minimum set of freedoms which they believe should be granted to all users of copyrighted materials. Created on a wiki with the feedback of Wikipedia users, open source hackers, artists, scientists, and lawyers, the definition lists the following core freedoms: * The freedom to use and perform the work * The freedom to study the work and apply the information * The freedom to redistribute copies * The freedom to distribute derivative works. Inspired by the Free Software Definition and the ideals of the free software and open source movements, these conditions are meant to apply to any conceivable work. In reality, these freedoms must be granted explicitly by authors, through the use of licenses which confer them. On the website of the definition, <http://freedomdefined.org/>, a list of these licenses can be found. Furthermore, authors are encouraged to identify their works as Free Cultural Works using a set of logos and buttons. The definition was initiated by Benjamin Mako Hill, a Debian GNU/Linux developer, and Erik Möller, an author and long-time Wikipedia user. Wikipedia already follows similar principles to those established by the definition. Angela Beesley, Wikimedia Advisory Board Chair and co-founder of Wikia.com; Mia Garlick, general counsel of Creative Commons; and Elizabeth Stark of the Free Culture Student Movement acted as moderators, while Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation and Lawrence Lessig of Creative Commons provided helpful feedback. As more and more people recognize that there are alternatives to traditional copyright, phrases like "open source," "open access," "open content," "free content," and "commons" are increasingly used. But many of these phrases are ambiguous when it comes to distinguishing works and licenses which grant all the above freedoms, and those which only confer limited rights. For example, a popular license restricts the commercial use of works, whereas the authors believe that such use must be permitted for a work to be considered Free. Instead of limiting commercial use, they recommend using a clever legal trick called "copyleft:" requiring all users of the work to make their combined and derivative works freely available. Möller and Hill encourage authors to rethink copyright law and use one of the Free Culture Licenses to help build a genuine free and open culture. == Links == * http://freedomdefined.org/ - Official homepage of the definition * http://freedomdefined.org/Licenses - Information about specific licenses * http://freedomdefined.org/Logos_and_buttons - Logos and buttons for identifying free cultural works == Contact == * Erik Möller - eloquence (at) gmail (dot) com - +49-30-45491008 * Benjamin Mako Hill - mako (at) atdot (dot) cc -- Peace & Love, Erik DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

1 0

Mayflower: Wikimedia Commons media search
by Tangotango 13 Feb '07

13 Feb '07

On 2/13/07, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Fantastic. It would probably be useful to include the image page > wikitext in the result.. even if it lowered the density of the > results. Unfortunately, that's not currently possible due to the structure of the index... (it only stores words and a reference to the pages on which that word can be found) However, an extension version of this tool would be able to do that, as can Special:Search. > should have a "Images and other content are copyright their respective > owners" or the like. :) Fixed :) Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers, Tangotango

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l February 2007