Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: Commons ZIP file upload for admins
As long as the files will be checked for malicious code, I don't think there could be any arguments against it. Such option is way overdue. It will allow edits that are now impossible. It will give editors more flexibility and save a lot of time. Especially if the original author decides to leave indefinitely. Please keep us posted. Regards, -- Orionist On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:03 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote: FYI, posting this question on wikitech-l mostly to get a security perspective on this. -- Forwarded message -- From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org Date: 2010/10/25 Subject: Commons ZIP file upload for admins To: Wikimedia developers wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org Hello all, for some types of resources, it's desirable to upload source files (whether it's Blender, COLLADA, Scribus, EDL, or some other format), so that others can more easily remix and process them. Currently, as far as I know, there's no way to upload these resources to Commons. What would be the arguments against allowing administrators to upload arbitrary ZIP files on Wikimedia Commons, allowing the Commons community to develop policy and process around when such archived resources are appropriate? An alternative, of course, would be to whitelist every possible source format for admins, but it seems to me that it would be a good general policy to not enable additional support for formats that aren't officially supported (reduces confusion among users about what's permitted -- there's only one file format they can't use). Thoughts? Thanks, Erik -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate -- Erik Möller Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Use labels in Commons and increase coverage
Hoi, I am writing a series of blog posts about Commons. My aim is to identify the issues that I have with how it functions. There are several and I do not bother to write about the ones that are being tackled by the team around Guillaume (as far as it is clear to me what they are doing). The latest blog is about the difficulty of finding pictures, I am also of the opinion that we have the opportunity to be more of a resource of stock images that are freely licensed. We should stimulate this. Yes Commons is growing rapidly. Its coverage leaves a lot to be desired. In my opinion we need to concentrate on search and coverage to make Commons truly kick ass. Thanks. GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/search/label/Commons ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Use labels in Commons and increase coverage
Hi, Op 28-10-2010 20:56, Gerard Meijssen schreef: Hoi, I am writing a series of blog posts about Commons. My aim is to identify the issues that I have with how it functions. There are several and I do not bother to write about the ones that are being tackled by the team around Guillaume (as far as it is clear to me what they are doing). The latest blog is about the difficulty of finding pictures, I am also of the opinion that we have the opportunity to be more of a resource of stock images that are freely licensed. We should stimulate this. Yes Commons is growing rapidly. Its coverage leaves a lot to be desired. In my opinion we need to concentrate on search and coverage to make Commons truly kick ass. A lot of fun stuff can still be done with the search engine (lucene), but as far as I know there is no development there. Would be nice if the foundation would work on that. Maarten Thanks. GerardM http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/search/label/Commons ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
[Commons-l] Active projects on Commons
Today I attended yet another workshop where a brave volunteer tried to explain the usefulness of Wikimedia Commons to teachers/scientists. During the following exercise, a very computer literate senior geneticist tried to access wikimedia.org and landed on the Wikimedia Foundation website. After this mistake was corrected, she soon found category:genetics, but from there couldn't find anything about DNA. Category:DNA exists, but is hidden some levels down. The immediate subcategories to Genetics are not the obvious ones to a geneticist. People who are very excited and want to learn, constantly run into these stupid mistakes. Can we please get rid of the name Wikimedia? The M-and-P confusion is among the very worst. Call it Wikipedia Foundation. Rename Commons to be Wikipedia Pictures. These two simple changes would save sooo much time. Yes, I know Wikimedia is more than just Wikipedia, that it also covers Wikisource, Wikibooks and all the other side projects. I also know that Commons is more than just pictures. I've been with Wikipedia since May 2001. But the everyday struggle of having to explain M-and-P is taking all the fun out of it. Is it really worth that? Now, the second part. Finding pictures in Commons is really hard. It seems that categories and textual descriptions are added by the uploader, and rarely modified or enhanced by others. Finding a map of bird migration paths across Europe might be easy, but finding a plain and simple map of Europe is hard. Images that appear directly in top categories (such as Category:Maps of Europe) are a very random mix, and not the most useful generic maps of Europe. The next 200 navigation is a total disaster, that not a single newcomer understands. Anything that is beyond the first 200 (e.g. subcategories that start with M-Z) are not found. Is there any topic category on Commons that is actively maintained for easy searching, i.e. where subcategories are well defined and where new images are systematically monitored and recategorized with enhanced descriptions? If I could find such an example, perhaps it could provide inspiration for other topics where a specialist with some extra time (or a grant application) could improve the actual usefulness of Commons. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Active projects on Commons
On 28 October 2010 21:21, Lars Aronsson l...@aronsson.se wrote:
Now, the second part. Finding pictures in Commons
is really hard. It seems that categories and textual
descriptions are added by the uploader, and rarely
modified or enhanced by others. Finding a map of bird
migration paths across Europe might be easy, but
finding a plain and simple map of Europe is hard.
Images that appear directly in top categories (such
as Category:Maps of Europe) are a very random mix,
and not the most useful generic maps of Europe.
The relevant search term is blank map of europe.
In practice if you are thinking of commons as wikipedia pictures by
far the best attack line is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_map_of_Europe_%28polar_stereographic_projection%29_cropped.svg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_map_of_Europe_%28polar_stereographic_projection%29_cropped.svg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Blank_SVG_maps_of_Europe
The next 200 navigation is a total disaster,
that not a single newcomer understands. Anything
that is beyond the first 200 (e.g. subcategories
that start with M-Z) are not found.
That can I think be addressed through {{category tree}}
Is there any topic category on Commons that is
actively maintained for easy searching, i.e.
where subcategories are well defined and where
new images are systematically monitored and
recategorized with enhanced descriptions?
Not categories. Any attempt to do that gets flooded by bots.
Closest would be
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Flowers
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Felis_silvestris_catus
--
geni
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Active projects on Commons
Galleries need to be encouraged to higher degree, these galleries work well as a guide but also as a way for potential contributors to identify areas where theres a short fall in available media. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Banksia --- which then links to the species categories directly http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Western_Australia then steps down to; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Perth,_Western_Australia What about a bot reading descriptions identifying keywords then adding it to those categories as a way to reduce the reliance on editors to select the categories. The other thing is the search results try commons search for canoe http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=canoe google images search for canoe http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=ensource=imghpbiw=1680bih=869q=canoegbv=2aq=faqi=g10aql=oq=gs_rfai= Commons search returns a list most people will see the category link and only 4-6 images initially, compared to google 32 images and 5 alternative search options -- the layout of the results on commons could be alot better. Even simple things like the first return is a link to the category:Canoe the information it gives on the category is *28 B (1 word) - 04:37, 27 September 2009* thats not really enticing people to even look there, then click on the link and you hit a soft redirect to Canoes another click then returns 196 images, plus 8 subcat with a further 10 subcats and 290+ photos. That initial search should have return the category of Canoes(because thats what is used) and the descrition should be something like *196 images, +27 subcats containing 472 images* now that would entice people to explore the category If you search for the intiial example of Geneticshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=Geneticsyou get first on the list a link to the category its description is 2 KB (19 words) - 11:05, 10 November 2009 it does nothing to indicate the depth of information available, click on the category it lists just 5 subcats but theres 14 more if you page to the next 200 each with multiple subcats including one cat that has 25256 files. We need a search result screen that coveys the availablility information when a search occurs so that people are able to understand whats actually available. Whie the M/P issue is annoying most people once they are enter past the differences wont encounter it again. Commons could benefit with an address that is uniquely commons but commons function is as a repository to all projects maybe call it Wikilibrary to On 29 October 2010 10:11, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org wrote: As for the Wiki(p|m)edia thing, I have to say I agree 100%, although I don't know what other complications there might be. On 10/28/10 1:21 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote: Now, the second part. Finding pictures in Commons is really hard. It seems that categories and textual descriptions are added by the uploader, and rarely modified or enhanced by others. Finding a map of bird migration paths across Europe might be easy, but finding a plain and simple map of Europe is hard. I was just talking about this with some other people at the WMF... I don't fully understand the ramifications of the debate, but it seems obvious to me that categories as implemented are not useful. The debate I see on Commons and elsewhere focuses on trying to fix Categories, but frankly IMO it would be better to migrate them to some other systems entirely. I agree. I've been mumbling about creating a design doc or mockups for my ideas to a few people at the WMF... is anyone else interested in working on this? IMO, the problem is not how it looks, but the utility of the information. If the metadata was more accessible, more people would fill it in. see e.g. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Dublin_Core -- John Vandenberg ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Re: [Commons-l] Active projects on Commons
oops wrong button hit when new message appeared [?] On 29 October 2010 13:18, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote: Galleries need to be encouraged to higher degree, these galleries work well as a guide but also as a way for potential contributors to identify areas where theres a short fall in available media. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Banksia --- which then links to the species categories directly http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Western_Australia then steps down to; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Perth,_Western_Australia What about a bot reading descriptions identifying keywords then adding it to those categories as a way to reduce the reliance on editors to select the categories. The other thing is the search results try commons search for canoe http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=canoe google images search for canoe http://www.google.com.au/images?hl=ensource=imghpbiw=1680bih=869q=canoegbv=2aq=faqi=g10aql=oq=gs_rfai= Commons search returns a list most people will see the category link and only 4-6 images initially, compared to google 32 images and 5 alternative search options -- the layout of the results on commons could be alot better. Even simple things like the first return is a link to the category:Canoe the information it gives on the category is *28 B (1 word) - 04:37, 27 September 2009* thats not really enticing people to even look there, then click on the link and you hit a soft redirect to Canoes another click then returns 196 images, plus 8 subcat with a further 10 subcats and 290+ photos. That initial search should have return the category of Canoes(because thats what is used) and the descrition should be something like *196 images, +27 subcats containing 472 images* now that would entice people to explore the category If you search for the intiial example of Geneticshttp://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchsearch=Geneticsyou get first on the list a link to the category its description is 2 KB (19 words) - 11:05, 10 November 2009 it does nothing to indicate the depth of information available, click on the category it lists just 5 subcats but theres 14 more if you page to the next 200 each with multiple subcats including one cat that has 25256 files. We need a search result screen that coveys the availablility information when a search occurs so that people are able to understand whats actually available. Whie the M/P issue is annoying most people once they are enter past the differences wont encounter it again. Commons could benefit with an address that is uniquely commons but commons function is as a repository to all projects maybe call it Wikilibrary or Wikirepository which would give some difference to the Foundation to help stop the M/P confusion On 29 October 2010 10:11, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Neil Kandalgaonkar ne...@wikimedia.org wrote: As for the Wiki(p|m)edia thing, I have to say I agree 100%, although I don't know what other complications there might be. On 10/28/10 1:21 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote: Now, the second part. Finding pictures in Commons is really hard. It seems that categories and textual descriptions are added by the uploader, and rarely modified or enhanced by others. Finding a map of bird migration paths across Europe might be easy, but finding a plain and simple map of Europe is hard. I was just talking about this with some other people at the WMF... I don't fully understand the ramifications of the debate, but it seems obvious to me that categories as implemented are not useful. The debate I see on Commons and elsewhere focuses on trying to fix Categories, but frankly IMO it would be better to migrate them to some other systems entirely. I agree. I've been mumbling about creating a design doc or mockups for my ideas to a few people at the WMF... is anyone else interested in working on this? IMO, the problem is not how it looks, but the utility of the information. If the metadata was more accessible, more people would fill it in. see e.g. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Dublin_Core -- John Vandenberg ___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com -- GN. Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com Gn. Blogg: http://gnangarra.wordpress.com 364.gif___ Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
