Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2015/01

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Improvement in speedy deletion procedure when a copyright violation is involved

Hi all, I've just have a discussion with a user that uploaded a couple of old photographs that were unfortunately copyrighted. He didn't have proper authorship information, but after some research I found out who the authors of the photographs were and concluded that, as they died 50 years ago, their photographs were not free yet. However, although the rationale I included in the {{Copyvio}} template was self-explainatory, the uploaded didn't got that information in the automatic notification he received. Would it be possible to change the javascript handling the procedure so that the uploader receives the "reason" attached to the {{Copyvio}} template also in the notification. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

This would in theory be easy but in practise, we face into the issue that Commons is multilingual and the nominator and recipient of a deletion notification warning do not necessarily understand each other. And someone will have to re-write the templates to support a reason parameter. -- Rillke(q?) 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
These are ordinary templates, no scripting. The {{Copyvio}} usage note suggests to use {{subst:copyvionote|1=Template:Copyvio}} ~~~~, if that isn't as you like it you could add a reason before the signature, or suggest an {{Editprotected}} update of {{Copyvionote}} on its talk page. It's substituted, if something goes wrong it won't break old notes. Or roll your own variant of "cvn", as Rillke said it must work for Arab, Chinese, Russian, etc. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think Discasto is a user of QuickDelete. -- Rillke(q?) 01:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Eek. BTW, please add a Monobook info for new files with your chunked upload script. –Be..anyone (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my poor explanation when introducing the proposal :-(

What I was referring to was the AjaxQuickDelete gadget that can be activated from our preferences tab and introduces a Report copyright violation link in the left-hand menu (I hope it clarifies the issue). I assume that any proposal should be handled through MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js, but anyway, I think some feedback and consensus should be reached here.

To summarize, what I'm proposing is that the reason provided by the person reporting the copyright violation (introduced by means of a text box with the title Why is this file a copyright violation?) is shown not only in the file page but also as part of the automatic message left in the uploader page. It would help the uploader to understand what has gone wrong and, if suitable, to ask for an undeletion. @Rillke: I see your point and you're absolutely right but in practice, nowadays such a reason is included in the file page (within the {{Speedydelete}} message) without any translation. Adding this information to the notification left in the uploader page would add information and wouldn't be harmful. I hope this explanation has been clearer now :-) Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be better, even if it is only in one language. Regards, Yann (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll move the request to MediaWiki talk:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js. Thanks again to all of you --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

What shall we do with this category?

I stared for ages at the title of Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories but could not figure out what it is for. After looking at some of the member categories I realised that it contains categories pages that have galleries. Surely, given the way wikis work, especially Commons, a page should be a category OR a gallery and not both. Having the odd image such as a map, flag, or logo makes sense but having a gallery of images introduces redundancy.

I would like to purge the member categories of excess images and then put it up for deletion. Our categories policy has nothing to say about images in category pages so we have to figure out what to do here. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Perhaps the editor who created the category meant that files in galleries in what you call the "member categories" need to be categorized into subcategories of the member categories. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I have now come across this Commons_talk:Galleries#Category:Categories_with_a_gallery_for_a_better_choice_of_sub-categories. Doesn't look like there is any agreement for it. I will put it up for deletion. Alan Liefting (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi
I didnt know that a discussion was running here.
I created this system of gallery inside a category for a better choice of sub-categories. Because it helps users to use a right sub-category instead a crowded mother-category. Especially for non-English speaking users.
For me, the better example is Category:Eiffel tower. There were hundreds (thousands ?) of photos in this category. And more and more every month. With this gallery, it is easy to choose a sub-category to use. And the mother-category is now cleaned.
I applied this system to some of the categories that I am following, but other wikipedians do the same in their categories (at least, 6 wikipedians). It is efficient :
Once admitted this principle of galleries inside a category, it is convenient to gather these categories with gallery. So I created the category we are speaking about. To see galleries created by other wikipedians and take good ideas. And to find other categories where a gallery may be added.
That is why I think that the present category should be kept. --Tangopaso (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Warning template suggestion

As I have seen a lot of license laundering files on here lately, I would like to suggest a warning template for warning users about license laundering. I know it may sound like a bad idea, but I have seen a lot of files that license launder on here.

Thanks. DLindsley Need something? 19:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

People who license launder should just be blocked. There's no point in warning people who obviously already know what they're doing is wrong. For users who simply failed to critically evaluate the authorship and licensing of files from another person's Flickr account (which is distinct from license laundering), there's {{Flickrvionote}} (to go with {{Flickrvio}}). —LX (talk, contribs) 22:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I see. DLindsley Need something? 23:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Contest namespace

Namespace filtering is available at the recent changes, user contributions, search and a lot of other spaces. There are several contests running at Wikimedia Commons, currently POTY, all over the year the QI, VI and FPC process and the Photo Challenge and they often flood the Commons namespace with very specific kind changes. Do we want to have them in a separate namespace for easier filtering? What other advantages or disadvantages are to be expected? -- Rillke(q?) 15:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Using the project namespace for projects isn't a problem from my POV. Strange "portal" (not here, fortunately), "draft" (shudder), "creator", or "museum" namespaces, the latter two apparently used for simple templates, confuse me. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on my funding proposal to work with UNESCO

Hi all

I’m looking for feedback and endorsement for my Wikimedia Foundation PEG grant to be Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO. I’d very much appreciate if you would have a look, the most relevant objective to Wikimedia Commons is:

2. Make content from the archives of UNESCO and its partners available on Wikimedia projects: This project will facilitate the upload of 30,000 images, audio files, videos, data and other content to Wikimedia projects from UNESCO archives (24,000 images), UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and other sources including 10 organisations changing their content license to be Wikimedia compatible.

I ran a pilot project that resulted in the images found in the category Images from the archive of UNESCO, here are a few examples:

  • The Soda volcano, Oromia, Ethiopia.
    The Soda volcano, Oromia, Ethiopia.
  • Rubble of the cathedral after the earthquake that hit the Capital Port au Prince just before 5 pm on 12 January 2010.
    Rubble of the cathedral after the earthquake that hit the Capital Port au Prince just before 5 pm on 12 January 2010.
  • Young monk, wearing a special costume, July-August 1991, Sikkim, India.
    Young monk, wearing a special costume, July-August 1991, Sikkim, India.
  • Sabha, 6, getting ready to walk to school from her house on the borders eastern Gaza strip, where she and her family are still living in tents.
    Sabha, 6, getting ready to walk to school from her house on the borders eastern Gaza strip, where she and her family are still living in tents.
  • Not far from Mohenjo-Daro (or Mohenjodaro) - These Mohana fishermen/hunters use lures from real birds to catch more birds. They will either eat them or sell them. Mohenjodaro, Pakistan.
    Not far from Mohenjo-Daro (or Mohenjodaro) - These Mohana fishermen/hunters use lures from real birds to catch more birds. They will either eat them or sell them. Mohenjodaro, Pakistan.
  • Priest of rock-Hewn Churches of Lalibela, a high place of Ethiopian Christianity, still today a place of pilmigrage and devotion.
    Priest of rock-Hewn Churches of Lalibela, a high place of Ethiopian Christianity, still today a place of pilmigrage and devotion.

If you think this is a worthwhile project please click this link and then click the endorse button.

Many thanks

Mrjohncummings (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment Great, I love them! Yann (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Manipulation of Recent Changes

If a WMF developer is doing this, STOP. This is a community led project, if this is the way the community is being deliberately manipulated, then you, a WMF employee, should feel profoundly ashamed of your unethical actions. If Abd is mistaken then can someone present the facts of what is happening, preferably pointing to a credible report on Phab. --Fæ (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

IF <incorrect prejudicial premise> IF <another incorrect premise> THEN <invalid conclusion>. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
No comment. --Fæ (talk) 08:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
"No comment" on a wiki, explicit like that, is an oxymoron. Just sayin'. I saw something very, very odd, and it was very odd, and the way I saw it made it look connected with the Russavia ban. Now, a paranoid mind would say that the WMF planned this mess, a process running wild, to make the suppression of notice deniable, they knew it was coming. I would never say such a thing, but I have the kind of mind that invents stuff. It can be useful as long as I don't believe it. I'm satisfied that the explanation we have been given is adequate. And I thank those who worked on fixing the problem, this process effectively shut down Recent Changes here for a day, and probably caused some real damage. So I'm glad I raised the issue (if that helped)! Now, back to our regular programming. --Abd (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am also glad you raised the issue. It had the additional advantage of giving MichaelMaggs an opportunity to respond, and he did: While he ignored your original point, he took time to take a potshot at Fæ’s framing of the issues based on your warning. And that response is a valuable datapoint for those of us not privvy with w:en/WMUK drammah. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Chill out guys! The RC log has not changed at all as far as I can tell today. Certainly not anything to do with any controversy. [Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes] shows the last 50 actions by default. What is different at the moment is the GW toolset log is being flooded by the actions of two users.
If you use any of the filters on recent changes, such as filtering by namespace, its not restricted to last minute. I cannot see how that relates to the issues with Russavia - its not developer censorship - its high volume of loggable actions. Or is the Swiss National Library in on this conspiracy? :)--Nilfanion (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Glad to hear this is wrong. Perhaps someone can explain in plain English the source of the confusion. I have my eye on the Swiss though. --Fæ (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This should be fixed now (well, for the moment...). See phab:T87040 for the details. I apologize for the inconvenience - I did not realize this would disrupt the recent changes, otherwise I would have shut it down sooner. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Great to see an explanation. I'll check it out. I had seen the massive log entries; from the explanation, if there are enough log entries, Recent Changes can't extract what it needs to display, is Recent Changes extracted from a larger log that is then limited in size? I did see some timing coincidences that made me connect this with the Russavia flap. I hope it isn't. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes shows the last 50 (or whatever your limit) RC records, an RC record being either an edit or a log entry. So yes, logs can crowd out edits from the recent changes list if they are frequent enough; GWT went into some sort of infinite loop and created about 10 log event per second, which is significantly faster than the edit rate (maybe one edit every 10 seconds). No idea yet what caused it, but updates will be posted to the Phabricator ticket so you can subscribe there if you are interested. --Tgr (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Tgr, I don't see those log entries in Recent Changes, normally. So my display was maybe two edits (when set to the default 50), and it didn't change at all if I set the number to 500 to display. There is a bug in Recent Changes if it is counting, in the number to display, log entries that are not to be displayed! Because I have seen a wiki owner clear the Recent Changes log in order to hide actions -- I did not just make this up! -- that's what I concluded was happening. From what you say, it's a bug involving a log being flooded. If Recent Changes is a subset of some kind of Recent actions log, and that log was overflowing, that would explain it. --Abd (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
If WMF wished to hide something, it would be much easier (and much less noticeable) to either oversight or plain delete the recent change entry in question. Here's a list (According to recentchanges at tool labs) of how many log actions happened on commons and how many edits happened for every ten minute interval for the last 2 days. As can be seen, there is a spike in log actions starting at about Jan 16 10:20 UTC (and really getting going at Jan 16 12:00 utc). This is before all the Russavia stuff happened. During the time that log actions spike, we still have lots of edits happening. So I think its safe to say that this is all unrelated. Bawolff (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
It is very probable that has not been done adequate research. Obviously incompetent or simply WMFoundashit thinks it's in a video game. --The_Photographer (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2015/01&oldid=149958520"