Commons-l September 2015

12 participants
5 discussions

Re: [Commons-l] [Multimedia] An image metadata standard to automate attribution and license info
by Yongmin Hong 30 Sep '15

30 Sep '15

If you want Commons' community opinion, you'd better see commons-l. (CC'd) -- revi https://revi.me -- Sent from Android -- 2015. 9. 30. 오전 6:19에 "Jane Park" <janepark(a)creativecommons.org>님이 작성: > Hi everyone, > > I lead platform work > <https://github.com/creativecommons/platform-initiative> at Creative > Commons. As part of that work, we are exploring the potential of a standard > field in EXIF that could make attribution and license info more sticky > across the web. We are currently in the research phase -- talking to major > image hosting platforms (and platforms that read and ingest images) about > what kinds of image metadata they read and retain. Zhou and his engineering > team at Wikimedia directed me to this list as I am seeking feedback from > the Wikimedia community. > > Ultimately, we want to make it easier for platforms to display provenance > and license info -- increase the likelihood that when a user lands on an > image, they know who created it and what license to use it under. For > example, images from Wikimedia Commons may get tweeted, but the image > metadata is not retained in tweets. How can we work with platforms to use > the same metadata standard so that info can be retained across them? > > Since we are just in the research phase now, I welcome your thoughts on > Wikimedia Commons' and Wikipedia's own uses of image metadata. Specifically: > > 1. The most common image metadata standards we know about are EXIF and > XMP. Which does Wikimedia primarily read and retain? Are there others that > are more widely used? > 2. Which standard does Wikimedia prefer? What would be easiest to > implement? for Wikimedia, but also for the platforms that Wikimedia > interfaces with. Aka, what are the pros and cons of each? > > Lastly, welcome any general thoughts about the feasibility and need for > such a project. > > Best, > Jane > > > Jane Park > @janedaily > Creative Commons | Los Angeles > > Make a donation to support CC in 2015: http://bit.ly/supportcc2015 > > _______________________________________________ > Multimedia mailing list > Multimedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/multimedia > >

1 0

SQL help needed
by Tuszynski, Jarek W. 16 Sep '15

16 Sep '15

Lately I wrote https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5201 to find Commons license templates with no transclusions, which were then listed for deletion at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Unused_license… . Now I would like to also get list of creators of those templates, so I can alert them about the discussion. Is there some easy way to do it, or do I need to modify the query somehow to get it? If so does anybody have some example queries that do it? Thanks Jarek T. [[user:jarekt]]

2 2

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
by Romaine Wiki 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

I think this subject should also be discussed on the Commons mailing list, as this plan is to demolish the navigational structure of Commons. 2015-08-27 15:03 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>: > No we have not a clear policy on only linking sitelinks to categories if > the item itself is about a category. So not let's not break that. > > You suggest to break down almost the complete navigational structure > Commons has in relationship with Wikipedia, and makes it possible to find > articles that are about the same subject as the category. Without it > becomes almost impossible to identify a category on Commons to be related > to an article in Wikipedia. > Sorry, but your proposal is insane and making the navigational situation a > thousand times worse. And does it make anything better? No, totally not. > Only the opposite: worse. > > Wikidata is currently heavily used to connect categories on Commons to > articles on Wikipedia. This so that interwikilinks are shown on the > category on Commons to the related Wikipedia article. This for navigational > purposes but also to uniquely identify categories on Commons to articles on > Wikipedia and items on Wikidata. > > How nice Commons galleries are giving an overview, they are crap in > speaking of navigational purposes. For every subject a category on Commons > is created and used and the Commons categories form the backbone to media > categories. > > It has been pointed out for a long time that the linking situation on > Commons is problematic and this is a software issue, not a user side issue. > This consists out of: > * There can only be added one sitelink to an item. > * If no sitelink added (but only added as property), a Commons category > can't show the interwikilinks. > * If a category and an article on Wikipedia/etc exist for a subject, only > one of them can be shown on the Commons category. > > The annoying part is that some large wikis, especially the English > Wikipedia, creates too many categories that are not created on other > Wikipedias. This causes that categories on Commons are only linked to a > category on Wikipedia, which is useless for most other wikis and on Commons > we miss an interwikilink to the related article. > > A gallery on Commons is a great way as alternative to show images, but is > not suitable for navigational purposes, as that requires a much higher > coverage and being a backbone everything relies on. On Commons only > categories have that function. A counter proposal makes more sense: no > Commons galleries as sitelinks any more and having Commons galleries only > as property added. > > But this only solves a part of the problem: on Commons I would like to see > somehow that both the related category as the related article are shown. > Example: on the Commons category for a specific country both the country > category on Wikipedia is linked as the article on Wikipedia is linked. > > Something I have been wondering about for a long time is why there are 2 > places on an item where a Commonscat is added. I understand the development > and technical behind it, but this should not be needed. > > So the developers of Wikidata should try to find a way to show both groups > of interwikilinks on categories on Commons. > > As long as this is not resolved in software, this problem of 2 items both > strongly related to a Commons category keeps an issue. > > Romaine > > > > > > 2015-08-27 11:29 GMT+02:00 James Heald <j.heald(a)ucl.ac.uk>: > >> A few days ago I made the following post to Project Chat, looking at how >> people are linking from Wikidata items to Commons categories and galleries >> compared to a year ago, that some people on the list may have seen, which >> has now been archived: >> >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2015/08#Trends_… >> >> >> A couple of headlines: >> >> * Category <-> commonscat identifications : >> >> ** There was a net increase of 61,784 Commons categories that can now be >> identified with category-like items, to 323,825 Commons categories in all >> >> ** 96.4% of category <-> commonscat identifications (312,266 items) now >> have sitelinks. This represents a rise in sitelinks (60,463 items) >> amounting to 97.8% of the increase in identifications >> >> ** 80.0% of category <-> commonscat identifications (259,164 items) now >> have P373 statements. This represents a rise in P373 statements (8,774 >> items) amounting to 14.2% of the increase in identifications >> >> >> * Article <-> commonscat identifications : >> >> ** There was a net increase of 176,382 Commons categories that can now be >> identified with article-like items, to 884,439 Commons categories in all >> >> ** 23.4% of article <-> commonscat identifications (207,494 items) now >> have (deprecated) sitelinks. This represents a rise in sitelinks (112,595 >> items) amounting to 63.8% of the increase in identifications. >> >> ** 91.3% of article <-> commonscat identifications (807,776 items) now >> have P373 statements. This represents a rise in P373 statements (110,727 >> items) amounting to 62.8% of the increase in identifications >> >> >> * In addition, a recent RfC showed considerable confusion as to what >> actually was the current operational Wikidata policy on sitelinks to >> Commons: >> >> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Category_common… >> >> >> In view of the trends above; and the need for predictability and >> consistency for queries and templates and scripts to depend on; and >> particularly in view of the apparent confusion as to what the operational >> policy currently actually is, can I suggest that the time has come for a >> bot to monitor all new sitelinks to Commons categories, >> * adding a corresponding P373 statement if there is not one already, and >> * removing the sitelink if it is from an article-like item to a >> commonscat. >> >> >> I believe we have clear policy on only sitelinking commons categories to >> category-like items, and commons galleries to article-like items; but there >> is currently confusion and unpredictability being caused because these >> relationships are not being enforced -- breaking scripts and queries. >> >> It's time to fix this. >> >> >> All best, >> >> James. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> > >

9 9

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
by Federico Leva (Nemo) 14 Sep '15

14 Sep '15

Luca Martinelli, 30/08/2015 12:03: > Am I the only one that thinks that jheald's .js is a temporary solution? > Am I the only one that actually appreciate his attempt at solving a > *practical* problem by providing a *practical* solution, It might be a practical solution, but I don't understand what it solves: what's the practical problem? Quoting from the project chat, the problem to me seems this: «2.4 millions categories are not connected to corresponding Wikipedia articles. [...] — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)». Nemo

7 11

Re: [Commons-l] [Wikidata] Trends in links from Wikidata items to Commons
by Romaine Wiki 13 Sep '15

13 Sep '15

As I wrote before, that thought is too simple. You only say that a zero belongs to a zero, and a two belongs to a two, then you only describe the type of page, but you ignore the subject of a page. That subject matters much more than the namespace number. Especially Wikinews is a wrong example, as most categories on Commons do not have a 1 to 1 relationship with Commons. However, articles on Wikipedia do have mostly a 1 on 1 relationship with categories on Commons. Romaine 2015-08-28 17:09 GMT+02:00 Luca Martinelli <martinelliluca(a)gmail.com>: > 2015-08-28 12:09 GMT+02:00 Romaine Wiki <romaine.wiki(a)gmail.com>: > > And I agree completely with what Revi says: > >> Wikidata ignores this Commons' fact by trying to enforce ridiculous > rules > >> like this. > > It's not such a ridiculous rule, if you think of the rationale behind > it: if gallery = ns0 and category = ns2, linking ns0 <--> ns2 in the > same item is IMHO not a rational thing to do (not even for Wikinews if > you ask me, but I'm digressing). > > So the *practical* problem that we have to address is the list of > links in the left column. We really don't have any possibilty to > exploit P373 in any way, not even with a .js, to fix this? > > L. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >

5 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Commons-l September 2015