Commons talk:Flickypedia/Archive 1

Mention of AI?

The mention of AI in one of the opening paragraphs worries me. Please tell me my images won't be hijacked to be fed to an AI. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 03:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. The opening paragraph was a summary about how Wikipedia is woven into the web now. While AI programs are definitely part of our new reality, there is nothing in the Flickypedia development that will mean direct hijacking of your images. In fact, we're working with legal experts on how we can work to prevent issues like "license washing" to address some of the existing issues.

More broadly, at the Flickr Foundation, we're also working on our own research about the impact "image trawling" by programs that require data is having on the Flickr community. Not sure what or when we'll publish on that, but I wanted to mention we're definitely aware of it, and also concerned. Ukglo (talk) 10:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU most images hijacked for sure, some as CC0 licenced will be legally, others less so...not much can be done with conventional licencing and viewing models. 93.138.217.91 07:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Flickr Dashboard

The tool I wrote a few years ago, Flickr Dashboard, is now functioning again. It's main goal is to make it easy to copy photos one-by-one to Commons, at the same time as editing the metadata on Commons and Flickr. It adds a links on both sides back to the other, and has other things such as auto-complete tags on Flickr that use Wikidata items and will add the relevant category on Commons if there is one. It also has a browser extension that adds a link on Flickr photo pages to make it quicker to go straight to flickrdash. The whole thing has I think never been used by anyone other than me! :-P Anyway, just thought I'd mention it here in case it's of interest. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. This sounds great. I'd like to hear more about it! In particular, how you manage adding links on both sides... We'd love to do that, but it's hard if anyone can use Flickypedia to upload anyone's Flickr pictures to Wikimedia Commons without authenticating as a Flickr user. Ukglo (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: Currently it appends the Commons link to the Flickr description, but of course that only works for one's own photos on Flickr. A better system I think is to add a comment to the Flickr photo because that'd work for more photos. Although I also wonder if inviting to a group would be a good thing to do. I experimented with something like that for Extension:FlickrImporter where it would import all photos from a group, i.e. that people would nominate something for importing by adding it to a group.

The other linking aspect is to add wikidata:id=Qnnn machine tags on the Flickr side, but that's for linking to tags/categories rather than individual photos.

I think having the option of authenticating with Flickr (in order for a backlink feature to work) would be a reasonable thing. There would also be the possibility of having a org account for the Commons tool that would be the author of the comments — that doesn't make it as personal though, and is perhaps more liable to feel like spam. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'd wondered about that too, having a "Flickypedia" Flickr account to post comments... I'm not sure how many automated comments-thingies are hanging out around Flickr though. You're right, that could feel weird.

We'd also heard a suggestion from elsewhere about how Flickr people might be able to use a specific machine tag to get slurped into some kind of batch Commons-publishing funnel. While that's good for Flickr photographers, I think I'd prefer to focus on something that's less "batch-y" for our first release, something that a person has to operate. Ukglo (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: Definitely agree about making it somewhat manual for a better experience. One way could be to create a 'Copy to Commons' group (or use the existing Commons group), and then automatically copy any photo added to that over to Commons. That's what the National Library of Australia did with their Trove: Australia in Pictures group — add things to that and within a day they're catalogued in Trove (only the metadata is copied, not the whole original file). Sam Wilson 05:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Other Flickr-related tools

Since the project page asks for references to other Flickr-related tools that may benefit from dedicated maintenance, I thought I'd mention the Flickr upload bot tool, which used to be hosted at toolsrever.org. Its features may now all be available via flickr2commons (I don't know), but it might be worth reviewing nevertheless even if just for the different UI/UX choices.

And by the way, that tool was associated with FlickreviewR, which has now been superseded by User: FlickreviewR 2. Possibly these might also benefit from this project?

Waldyrious (talk) 00:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for these mentions. We're now building a list of all the other possible Flickr-y tools in existence so we can reconcile them appropriately with the original scope of the Flickypedia idea. I suspect it may be a longish list! Ukglo (talk) 11:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes thank you, I missed the upload bot and I've added it to the list. Jessamyn (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

UploadWizard Flickr upload

Why is improving the Flickr upload functionality of the UploadWizard no option for this project? GPSLeo (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. It'll be good to hear from the WMF team on this one, but, from the Flickr Foundation's perspective, we particularly wanted to adopt a tool that came from the community, and Flickr2Commons seemed like the right option. As mentioned in the comment above, I suspect there may be a longer list of possible options than my/our research initially unearthed, and we'll now need to assess that list, and the project's original scope, to see whether it's possible (or good/useful) to expand our work to accommodate other tools in this first bit of work - ie. the next six months.

Personally, my instinct at this stage is to keep the scope tight and do a good job of the initial idea than incorporate too many other tools in the mix initially. That will ensure we, at the Foundation, keep strong focus on the main bits we want to do really well (like authentication, license handling, hopefully some engagement with the Structured Data on Commons initiative). Ukglo (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Can Flicker to amend their upload wizard to ask if the owner wants a Wikipedia-eligible license

I see a lot of ordinary files on Flickr that are not full copyright, but are still not suitable for Wikipedia (i.e. NC-ND but not full sharealike). I wonder if we asked Flickr to add a button on their upload wizard to ask people if they want to use the license that would make their image eligible for Wikipedia. I suspect that a lot of Flickr amateur photographers would love to have their photos used in Wikipedia articles, but they probably think that CC-BY-NC-ND should do it, when it doesn't. We could do the same with YouTube. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here: "we asked Flickr to add a button on their upload wizard" - can you please be more specific? Thanks! Ukglo (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Could we ask Flickr to add button on their own upload wizard (in the licensing section), that would choose a licensing that would make their photo Wikipedia-eligible. I think that such an amendment would have an material effect on Flicker uploaders, and thus create a lot more usable free media for us? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I get it! Yeah that makes sense. We're not going to be able to get flickr.com to change their choose-a-license flow in the timeline of this project (most likely) but I agree it would be nice for people to have full information about this. For the longest time I thought the license I was using was Wikipedia-eligible and it wasn't. It would be good, in general, to have that be more specific and sharing-oriented. Jessamyn (talk) 14:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I have a funny feeling that if Flickr (and Youtube) users were explicitly asked while uploading their content whether they wanted to use a license that made it Wikipedia-eligible, that we would have a huge take up. 95% of content on Flickr/Youtube is going nowhere (i.e. never going to get used by others), but a lot of this 95% is useable - and very useful - for Wikipedia purposes. I would guess that if we formally mentioned it to them (through the right channels), that they would love the idea of having such functionality on their site, and to be associated with Wikipedia? Aszx5000 (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We need to be clear to members of the public that this is not just for Wikipedia, but that open licensed images may be used by anyone, even commercially.

We can make a case for allowing that, but it should never come as a surprise to someone that an image that they "gave to Wikipedia" appears on a commercial website or in a book. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense. So how would we go about doing this? Does someone in Commons have contacts in Flickr? (and youtube)? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Come and meet us

At various times, organisations like Google, Microsoft, IBM, and assorted museums etc. have either attended our events (not least Wikimania), or hosted fringe events alongside them, to meet with Wikimedia activists and other members of the community.

It would be good for both Flickr and the Flickr Foundation to do likewise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely. We have a proposal in for the GLAM Wiki Conference and we're hoping to attend. Jessamyn (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Just confirming we'll be coming along to the GLAM Wiki conference, and looking forward to showing our progress and hanging out with everyone! Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Selecting license sooner rather than later

It states on the page that the license will be selected later. I would like to chime in with my professional advice and flip it around. Best practice, as I have learned for open source software, to be perfectly clear about what license every single line of code in a codebase is under, is to have that be the first commit after initializing a repository. That will clearly show the intention for all contributors to that codebase, too. By doing that, you will also have all the possibilities to choose freely about which license you want to use, rather than being restricted at a later date due to compatibility issues with code you are using. Ainali (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you absolutely agree. We were waiting until out tech lead was hired to make sure we were making good decisions about this and that's happened so we hope to update this soon before the tool is out. Jessamyn (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Checked in with the tech lead and they said "Dual-Apache and MIT" so I'll add that. Thank you for the nudge! Jessamyn (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately licensing is difficult to understand (especially the permanent effect of it is often misunderstood by people). I think it is important that this step is early in the proces, so that people are still paying attention. Setting the proper expectation, is important I think. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Update! 19 October 2023

Hi all,

Wanted to draw your attention to two main updates: 1) we've published the framework we're using to encourage responsible licensing via Flickypedia, and 2) we have made a Wikidata Property request for Flickr Photo ID. Please check them out and let us know what you think! Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, will definitely review when I have the time. ! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

First notes:

• "Help people using Flickypedia understand Wikimedia licensing requirements" this statement is followed by a bunch of technical details :) We've made this mistake before. People don't really care, they want to complete whatever task they set out to do. I suggest emphasising the MISSION as the argumentation for why these licenses. Wikimedia doesn't accept other license because these specific licenses are a durable method of indicating that other people may use, reuse, modify and sell the material for everyone in the world. Or something similar. And then the technical details that fulfil that mission.
• One thing that is missing is that people often make mistakes in key areas. physical possession == ownership and that making a photo of a copyrighted item means that you can't give a full license on that work. These are complex areas, but very common mistakes. I have no idea how to solve this from that framework point of view, but I think some thought can be put into it.
• Notify creators. These are disjoint communities. So informing in one direction is good, but make it clear that if people reply, the other person might see/read it and/or get notified. There is a link to the photo in the desgign, but maybe also link to the user's talk page ? Cross linking is probably needed in these messages.

—TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Copyright infringement can happen with descriptive text. Directly copying something that someone else has written to describe their pictures can be seen as copyright infringement when it goes beyond the more ‘objective’ information about pictures like the date taken or its camera settings. I think we should make sure all metadata is CC0, and not open up for descriptions being work of art in need of copyright protection. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree @Axel Pettersson (WMSE), but if it's not made explicit on Flickr, you cannot be 100% sure that descriptions can never be subject to copyright protection. And if it's not copyrightable at all, PDM would be a better fit than CC0 in my opinion. It is probably very low-risk, but I can imagine that marking all metadata as CC0 it is not the general policy you would want to have in place. Or it depends on who is taking this low risk: the individual user or the Wikimedia Foundation? Beireke1 (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your feedback. The excerpt you've copied here is what we'd describe as a current challenge, and in the next section of the doc, "what we'll do in Flickypedia to encourage responsible licensing," you'll see we're intending to help people use CC0 for a new "file caption" or "short caption" field for Wikimedia Commons which they will compose as part of the upload. Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

• The Wikidata property is created, so that is done. I commented on the Google Slides. Eventually those slides need to be uploaded to Commons, but I see that for now, they are still in development.

This is going in the right direction and I anticipate no barriers. Please continue this kind of community conversation. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, we're trying to continue the conversation. Forgive me if I'm slow to respond to things! Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Glamwiki 2023 presentation

Just FYI for all. There was a presentation in GLAMWiki 2023 : Flickypedia - alpha showcase, feedback, discussion (slides, notes) -- Zache (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Also bot: User:FlickypediaBackfillrBot github) --Zache (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes! We are looking forward to having a stable demo available for testing with the community soonish. Jessamyn - Flickr Foundation (my talk page) 18:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Uploading OOC images with with non-open licences

I have just competed the survey, but forgot to mention this:

One of my bugbears with the current F2C tool is not being able to upload images where the Flickr user has not used an open licence, but the image is out of copyright (scan of a Victorian painting or photograph, old postcard, old ephemera, etc.), and is thus acceptable to Commons.

I realise this could be open to abuse, but the ability to do so could be given to users with a good track record, as a user-right. A tag in the edit summary could mark such uploads as requiring extra scrutiny. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That's useful feedback. Figuring out the way to mesh (or track) the licenses in a way that takes into account things like that is something we're eager to do. Jessamyn (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Note that Commons also allows users to upload images that are nearly but not yet out of copyright, and then tag them for deletion (which keeps a non-public copy in the database), so that they can be undeleted once the copyright expires. Flickypedia should allow for this circumstance, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK Flickr metadata does not contain any information on when a photo will fall out of copyright. Not sure how we'd know? Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: You wouldn't need to; that's where the user-right, for "users with a good track record" comes in - it would be up to those people to use their judgement (subject, as always to community review). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:36, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi - Sorry. I don't understand how this would work... It seems to imply that Flickypedia should allow an upload of an image with any license. Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: Yes; precisely that. The use case is that some Flickr users upload scans of out-of-copyright works (Victorian ephemera, Edwardian postcards, etc) and claim copyright over them (probably by neglecting to change from their default photo licence). Because assessing the copyright status of such images requires a degree of experience, only users who have been granted permission by the Commons community, after demonstrating such experience, should be allowed to use the tool to upload such images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is the permission you're referring to recorded?

(Just to set expectations, I think this is not in scope for our Version 1, but it would be good to note in our issues list for possible future consideration.) Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: You can see my current user rights ("file mover, patroller, rollbacker, template editor"), for example, at [1]. I presume this is also available via API. Caveat noted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andy - How and when would you insert a tag in the edit summary? Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: Whenever a user with the user right uploads an image that does not have a free licence. You can see a randomly-selected edit with three tags in this diff. There's more about this at mw:Manual:Tags. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

+1 Beireke1 (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Upload by tag

I was just looking for something else and found a suggestion I made in 2020:

Here for example, is a set of 57 Flickr images sharing a unique tag. Is it possible to upload all images with that tag, in one go? If I use Flickr2Commons, specifying the Flickr account name and the tag, it finds no results.

T245063 also refers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Not entirely certain but I believe this is functionality we're hoping to have. I agree, it would be very useful. Jessamyn (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

After checking, I don't think by user/by tag is something v 1.0 is going to have, but it is a nice way to think about future directions. Jessamyn - Flickr Foundation (my talk page) 16:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Returning to this – we do support finding photos by tags!

(Although I don’t actually see any photos at that tag?) Alexwlchan (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Upload from Category interface

So I recently was introduced to this INaturalist extension that helps me "Discover" Inaturalist content that is a good candidate for upload into a category: [2]-- I would love to have a similar interaction with Flicker -- where it generates a candidate link for potential tags or search results that would give me candidates for upload to Commons, Sadads (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

This would be particularly useful on things with Proper names (i.e. people, buildings, taxons, etc), Sadads (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Good idea! And/but, this is easier on iNaturalist because of taxonomy/agreed naming - hard to see how it could work for the arbitrariness on Flickr! We'd sort of have to put a button on every WM page just in case? Ukglo, flickr.org 🌸 (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo So, I would have a link for a "Flickipedia search", or even do an API call to Flickipedia for tags that string-match. At one point, Magnus had a tool that suggested likely matches from Flickipedia, and this was particularly useful for names of people, species and buildings -- it was less useful for general concepts -- but saving the step of search and having to conciously leave Commons to search on Flickr, would be super valuable for those of us looking for content gaps. Sadads (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Search Flickr by checksum

One crucial missing piece of the Flickr API that I've found when working with Commons images and Flickr is that there's no way to search by file checksum/hash. Commons files have sha1 hashes (e.g.) available for each file, and these can be really useful when checking for file existence on different services. I'm not sure if Flickypedia will be needing to do this, but if a side effect of this project was to expose a public checksum API that would be brilliant! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. We at the Flickr Foundation don't have a way to change the Flickr API directly, (as we're a totally different organisation) but, I'll let the flickr.com team know you've mentioned this. Ukglo (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we'll be working with the API ourselves for the most part for the things we'll be building at the Flickr Foundation, at least for now. I encourage you to reach out to the flickr.com developers either via their Help Form or their Help Forum (in addition to Ukglo's note) to see if you can get it on their radar. I do agree, it would be a useful thing to have be searchable. Jessamyn (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Samwilson - one of the team asks "Does md5 work or do you need sha1?" Ukglo (talk) 10:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: MediaWiki stores sha1 hashes of files so it'd be simpler if that were possible, but if they've already got md5 available then that'd be better than nothing most definitely! Any way to check for an existing file would be terrific. Send them my thanks! Sam Wilson 11:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll pass that along. Ukglo (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if both (Flickr and MediWiki - and also every other provider of images (free images, commercial images)) would offer not only one hash, but a number of hashes: sha1 and md5, and even more important: hashes of the image content only (without the EXIF, XMP, IPTC, ICC data) as it is often the case, that metadata is changed but not the image itself (exiftool offers such a hash for some time now) and even even more important: a semantic hash, that is independent of image resolution, of cropped image frames, of compression artefacts, of changing the image from tiff to png to jpeg to webp - it is still the identical image! C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing Flickr's CC license drop-down

I was hoping to batch change the licensing at my Flickr account from all rights reserved to Attribution Share-alike which links to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ this 2.0 license. Can we get Flickr to link directly to our CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license? Also, does anyone know if there's a way to batch-change the license on our Flickr image? I have far too many images to update the license individually, and simply not tech-savvy enough to figure out how to do it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I was inmvited to test this on Commons but the first URL I entered said 'None of these photos can be used because they have licenses that Wikimedia Commons doesn’t accept.' Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Adding support for CC-BY-SA 4.0: currently flickr.com only has the 2.0 version of the CC licenses, and I don't know of any timeline for that changing. You’re not the first to ask, and I know it’s been discussed, but I can’t say if/when it will happen. (That would require work from flickr.com, which is a separate org from the Flickr Foundation who built Flickypedia. I don’t know more than you on this topic!)

Changing licenses in bulk: there’s a tool for batch changing your licenses at https://www.flickr.com/account/prefs/license/batch, which requires a Flickr Pro account. Alexwlchan (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Birdy

PICA PAU DO CAMPO

Would this be a better avian mascot? Jim.henderson (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Stuck at "Uploading..."

my tab is stuck at the animation "Uploading..." after batch uploading 4 photos successfully. not a big issue for now, since the uploads are already done.--RZuo (talk) 11:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Username

if possible, Template:Uploaded with Flickypedia should use "Special:Redirect/user/<User ID>" to jump to the user, instead of username, because users can be renamed. RZuo (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error and was unable to complete your request. Either the server is overloaded or there is an error in the application.

i run into this problem quite a few times. RZuo (talk) 11:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

keep getting 500 Internal Server Error right now. cannot even open the tool. RZuo (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons is also not working. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Ability to detect deleted image duplicates

So far, Flickypedia works satisfactorily, though I hope some suggestions brought here are made into consideration. I have one suggestion: Flickypedia should have the ability to detect deleted images, so that the imports will not be reuploaded. I have seen cases in which images (mainly those showing unfree buildings and monuments of France, Iceland, and other countries not allowing commercial freedom of panorama) are "reuploaded" (by different users). This indirectly results to duplicates, and eventually, deleted duplicates. Flickypedia should have this detection ability and perpetually block the attempts to import that Flickr image. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Sample cases of reuploading Flickr images that Commons cannot accept because of the source countries of depicted buildings and monuments not allowing commercial freedom of panorama (those were the Flickr-2-commons days): Commons:Deletion requests/File:Le centre Georges Pompidou (Paris) (8191200447).jpg (France) and Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall)#Files in Category:Harpa (concert hall) 6 (Iceland, for File:Harpa (21460143573).jpg). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

If you try to upload a file with the same message digest as a deleted file, you get a warning message and can stop the upload. But is thre a way to check the message digest against deleted files before upload? Also: MW only stores the Message Digest of the complete file. Changing a single bit in the file will change the message digest. A semantic message digest for (at least deleted) files would be helpful. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Strange case

https://www.flickr.com/photos/44653897@N00 https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikegoat/

i run into this strange case. flickypedia, uploadwizard, flickr2commons all fail given either of these links, but there're plenty of ccby photos on this account. RZuo (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, that's weird. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
• Is it because they have "Safety level: Moderate"? Sam Wilson 00:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo the photos are not public in my case (perhaps because I'm not a Flickr user). Flickypedia may only import photos that have been made public, IMO. I have a similar assumption to @Samwilson: 's assumption. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Samwilson: Aha! I hadn't noticed that. Yes, the API used by these tools won't find those. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

So: this is an interesting question, moving forward, for Flickypedia: is it stuck with that same API? Or can it allow other Flickr content? - 02:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a limitation of the API (or rather, if you don't authenticate with the API then I think it's limited to 'safe' photos, but that wouldn't be the case here), it's a choice — I assume the idea is that only safe photos should be transferred, but probably Commons' threshold for what's permitted is actually more lenient than that and it seems sensible that this limit could be increased to at least 'moderate', if not 'restricted' (there are three levels). Sam Wilson 02:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

@Samwilson: I was told years ago when I raised this as an issue at Flickr2Commons that it was an API limitation and that there was no way around it, but maybe I was lied to; I didn't investigate further. It is certainly not desired from Commons' end. Most of what Flickr considers "moderate" and even a fair amount of what it considers "restricted" wouldn't raise an eyebrow here. E.g. File:2017 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists 062.jpg is "moderate" on Flickr (I know, because I shot it, and there I uploaded a copy there) because if you look carefully you can see a nipple, and File:2017 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists 026.jpg is restricted because OMG a PENIS! (which is at about "Where's Waldo" level of visibility). - Jmabel ! talk 04:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

i see.

it appears for these moderate photos you can do them one by one, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mikegoat/7179024799/in/album-72157630033448161/ . this works for both wizard and f2c. flickypedia will say "This photo can’t be used because it’s not set as Safe on Flickr."--RZuo (talk) 21:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a poor choice on the part of Flickypedia. If that was based on some stated requirement, I would very much like to know what entity drove that requirement. If it is the Flickr Foundation, I suppose that is their prerogative, though I'm not happy. If it's something within the Wikimedia community, they should take responsibility for it. - 00:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)