Cropped directly from a contact sheet. Yes, the contact sheets have value to Commons and Wikipedia.
In reply to your post here, you may now speak her name. The photos cropped directly from the contact sheets seem to come out nice and establishes that the images in the contact sheets themselves are good enough for the Wikipedia articles. The image process would have been much eaiser were the contacts sheets already in Commons instead at the Ford website. The information in the caption to the second photo in the article was taken from the Ford Daily Diary for the day. You can follow they DYK nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Sandra Eisert. Feel free to jump in if there are any issues there. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
wow, you are a Monster of Rock, too. That article is VERY nice. Please pace yourself, I need your energy to keep mine. The contact sheets are apparently being uploaded at this time; after Michael does his categorization, I'll figure out how/who to find to do the image/frame extraction process; and also your recent idea of dynamically linking the frames to the contact sheets, which seems like it would happen simultaneously with the frame extraction.
The wiki-love is appreciated. We're all working hard in our own way because we can see the benefit of getting all the millions of NARA images into Commons for use in Wikipedia to the benefit of NARA. With the six Ford Presidential Library and Museum inspired articles I've written using the NARA material -- Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento (and Senator Hotel) and Sandra Eisert (and Atrium Award, Missouri Photo Workshop, and List of Missouri Photo Workshop faculty), I'm hoping that the remainder of NARA will be better able to envision and then embrace the benefit of getting all the millions of NARA images into Commons for use in Wikipedia to the benefit of NARA. For the Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento article, it would be great to get an answer from her as to why she twice circled that Ford contact sheet image as I originally pondered here. I sent her an email from the email address listed here. However, I usually don't receive responses when I send such emails as a Wikipedia editor. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those contact sheet crops really look good in the articles! They're a bit small, but they certainly do work. You were definitely right on this one, Uzma! Michael Barera (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quick question on the new contact sheet uploads: as I'm trying to figure out the photographer Moore's first name (I still haven't found it), is there a list of all the photographers who created the Ford-era contact sheets somewhere? That would be quite useful for categorization purposes... Michael Barera (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, I can't find his name either- I've even looked at the Nixon site to see if he was a left over. He's not on our site anywhere. Is it gonna slow you down if I find it out tmrw in the am?
Smallman12q, I think the file samples look fine, despite the beers; in the future, I won't bother with hot chocolate, I'll just send along a few ponies. Please press GO or START or whatever the button is.. I'll ask about higher dpi versions tmrw too. Just so you know I'm actually doing something (besides my nails) I'm busy over here doing really really really important things. PS I told a co-worker about the contact sheets, and the possible frame extractions, and his eyes actually bugged out. Bdcousineau (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't slow me down: I'd just love to have both first and last names for all the photographers before the mass uploads begin for the contact sheets. Thanks for taking a look at it. Michael Barera (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Moore. Apparently a lab tech. Used when no one else was available. Will show up randomly on the contact sheets.
I could do it by hand, but it is such a large batch of files that it would take a very long time. It may be possible to have a bot do it, but you'll have to ask Smallman12q: I (unfortunately) have no experience with bots. Another option would be to split each of the month/year categories, one at a time, by photographer and then make all of those subcategories of the "Photographs by" categories. That would certainly work, but it would take a significant amount of time to do by hand (I would be willing, it just wouldn't happen overnight). Michael Barera (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you add the creator templates to the author fields (which will auto-categorize the images in the "photographs by" categories)? So far, we just have Kennerly and Eisert, but my goal is to create such templates for all of the Ford presidential photographers. For starters, could you begin by replacing all instances of "Kennerly" in the author section with {{Creator:David Hume Kennerly}} and all instances of "Eisert" with {{Creator:Sandra Eisert}}? It would be fantastic if this could be done by bot so we don't have to do it by hand. Thanks! Michael Barera (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:WIN form.jpg is very cool; gosh those were different times! I have a whole bunch of WIN artifacts uploaded already (I need to re-check their copyright status...the copyright police have been at me). I'll bet there is other print stuff too. The WIN speech was part of a joint session of Congress, possibly filmed by NPC (Naval Photographic Center - they apparently filmed the Presidential events - so ANY of their films can be used on Commons). We have pool coverage from the networks - considered public domain, but is watermarked with their logos, so not copyright free). I'll know in minutes if we have the NPC footage - Snr. Photo Archivist is checking for me.
There are 12638 contact sheets listed on the site, but only 9000 or so are referenced in the pdfs. The rest of the contact sheets have no description beyond a date.Smallman12q (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are gaps in the scans from April '75 to March '76. Perhaps it's those? When you write "referenced in the pdfs" I assume that's another way of saying "scanned" (or it wouldn't have a pdf to reference too, right?)((tapping her head and feeling smart!!)) Bdcousineau (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - bet it's that group then. Head is getting cloudy - confused by copyright implications of commercially-produced merch with embedded Federally commissioned logos, like WIN buttons, Bicentennial gear, etc. Must listen to house music to clear head. Crap! Can't - at work. All is lost. (sorry - I'm the only one here today - it's bbboooorrrinnggg, and I'm suddenly turning into w:Bridget Jones). Snr Photo Archivist reports in that NO NPC footage of WIN speech, only network pool feed. Photographs/audio of press conference the following day, though. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice! I love being able to keep track of Ford materials from all over. BTW, we just received approx 10 boxes of Ford family pictures, from birth to death - including baby Jerry just after being born, and other remarkable moments. Since the Ford kids sent them to us, I can only assume they are available for use., but later. My next benchmarks: get {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} made, and in front of as many people as possible, talk A LOT about who is working on it. This template will make us serious players in Presidential Libraries and NARA, because it will go beyond the Ford Library. Thank you Jim. Also Ford ARC materials culled and uploaded; I hope Smallman12q is in this for the long haul. I am!
Yes, four is the lower limit: below it, the table of contents auto-hides. I think the idea is to prevent small Wikipedia articles with only a couple sections from being dominated by a fairly-useless table of contents. Michael Barera (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The contact sheets look fabulous. I'm so impressed with the results. And really, what a great example of the best of wikipedia - everyone brought their A-game, and there was no grumbling. Go, little project, go! Bdcousineau (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the contact sheets look great, and I really love what we have already been able to do with cropping and uploading new stand-along images! I was certainly wrong about doubting the potential usefulness of such images: thanks for talking me out of it and uploading! By the way, has anyone seen a photograph of David Hume Kennerly in any of the contact sheets? I'm looking for a good image to illustrate his Wikipedia article and his creator template here on Commons. Thanks and Happy New Year! Michael Barera (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Hume Kennerly (contact sheet:A5297-frame:4A) and David Hume Kennerly shooting President Gerald R. Ford's first official portrait, 8/17/1974 (A0159-11A) on the Ford website [2] or [3].
That second link is great! Are they all in contact sheets or what? Could we get all of the images of the photographers so we can create creator templates for all the Ford administration presidential photographers complete with images? That would be awesome! Michael Barera (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that first number "AXXXX" is the contact sheet, the second number is the frame on the contact sheet; you should be able to see those numbers running along the bottom of each strip. The AXXXX number is in the commons file name. You'll have to look at the contact sheet to find the frame you want. I'll get you some more samples from the Photo Archivist on Wednesday. Is that helpful? Bdcousineau (talk) 23:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How cool is this? Thanks everybody for making this happen!
I just posted a request at Graphics Lab/Photography workshop to see if we can recruit someone to assist in improving the contact sheets. BD, at the posting, I noted, "Since Bdcousineau works at the Ford Presidential Library, working with her to improve these Commons images could give you something to add to your resume." I hope I didn't overstep my bounds. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who knew there was a Graphics Lab? What a great idea! No you didn't overstep! One of the most interesting things for me about Wikipedia and its other wikis is just that - learning about the nooks and crannies where interest groups aggregate. And meeting friendly strangers .... I love walking around my city looking at people thinking - "is that Uzma? or Smallman12q? Zolo?" Of course not, but it's still fun. Can't wait to see if someone shows up to help out. Bdcousineau (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a conversation about a Gerald R. Ford task force or WikiProject on Wikipedia[edit]
Thank you, that looks great. Did you see this - Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Abraham Lincoln - it was above your entry. So curiou to see if there's any interest/input.
Michael, we have to chat about your first day at the Library...there'll probably be a meeting again. Let me get back into my office-self, send around some emails, and then I'll post here about a plan; details on that later this week. I also still have to finish that PEP online registration thingy. And then there's the PR blitz we have to get off the ground. Anticipate some photos being taken on the 11th, for NARA, UofM and GLAMWikimedia.
I liked the creator template. Was your intention to do one for all the main Ford photographers? Also, the "authority control numbers" - at one point there was a need for them for the instiitution tags...where did you find those? Bdcousineau (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the US Presidents WikiProject doesn't want a Ford task force or thinks that a full-out Ford WikiProject would be a better idea, then I will go to the WikiProject Council and propose such a WikiProject. If that happens, I'll need some backup from everyone involved in the project so far (which, if I can remember everybody, includes you, Uzma Gamal, Smallman12q, Arbitrarily0, and myself). I want to see if the Presidents project will have us first, though, because we're going to be pretty small and would probably be better suited to a task force than a full WikiProject.
To answer your question about the creator templates, yes my intention is to create one (complete with an image and tied into the correct "photographs by" category) for each of the main Ford photographers. The "authority control numbers" are something I know nothing about: they were already on the Kennerly creator template, so I just left them. Perhaps other people will fill them in on the other templates as we create them. The template that I created from scratch for Sandra Eisert doesn't have any, at least right now. Michael Barera (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can provide backup. And I can add a few more names of people willing to help too. PS, compared to what you guys do, I don't really contribute any important edits, just wiki-love and persistence. ;) Bdcousineau (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The recently uploaded Ford material goes well beyond President Ford. For example, I just posted a note at WikiProject Scouting announcing the new scouting images. I think a WikiProject Ford Presidential Library would be a better fit for the new material. For Wikipedia, I find it's better to just do than ask. So, if you want me to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Ford Presidential Library, please let me know and I'll create it. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that up to you and Michael - I'm working on {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} with some Admins and other copyright savvy people... once the Wiki-ians okay the template, I will take it to the NARA lawyers and then the Presidential Library people, thereby moving this project up a level and gaining widespread legitimacy. I feel confident this will happen.
I am interested in getting the Ford article onto the English Front page on his birthday in July (like will happen in January with the Nixon page). I don't think it's an FA tho. I was gonna contact Wehwalt (he wrote the Nixon article) to see if he has any interest in helping with this... or or there other avenues? Bdcousineau (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really think that the WikiProject should be content focused and not organization focused, though. Plus, it won't be WikiProject President Ford, it will be WikiProject Gerald Ford and will cover all aspects of his life. I still haven't heard a response from WikiProject U.S. Presidents, so I'm going to assume a level of inactivity that will make a task force difficult to say the least, so I think we really should look at a WikiProject. I think the goal with the WikiProject is to move beyond just the Library and Museum and embrace everyone who is interested in Ford, so I really do think it should be content focused and not named after an institution, not matter how large a role that institution plays in the process. Uzma, I would totally support you creating a WikiProject, but I really think it should be at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gerald R. Ford. Thanks and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 17:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The Ford article is an FA and it has already run on the main page. As far as I've seen, FAs can only run as article of the day once on English Wikipedia (I've never seen an article that has run twice), but I can't seem to find any text supporting this...
I don't believe an FA can appear twice on the main page anymore. It's documented somewhere. You can create a wikiproject if you want. And it should be about ford, and not the library (sorry NARA).Smallman12q (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For once, I have no opinion. Just let me know what you'll need from me. Oh wait - there's a weird rule that I just remembered: we NARAnians cannot contribute content about our institution, but we can contribute about our subject (in this case the presidents). I never "got" that rule, but there it is. Dominic sent it around. So Michael, as WiR, I think you gotta do a WikiProject on Ford. I'll email you that doc that Dominic sent. Bdcousineau (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rule is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (COI). You're not supposed to advance outside interests that aren't in the scope of the project, such as PR firm/SEO company. Since you're trying to improve coverage of Ford in a neutral manner, you've declared your association with NARA, and you're seeking consensus for your edits, you can make the edits. For what not to do, you could read w:Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia.Smallman12q (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Years! 2013=D I'll upload the remaining contact sheets sometime this week or later. I'll also look at autoextraction. For some sheets its very clear, for other its not. So...what's next?Smallman12q (talk) 02:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year to you too! Hope you had a good one. I've resolved to try to act my age, instead of doing things like this.
I think the ARC/OPA upload will be next. It might be more boring for you but it will make a point at the Ford Library, and a level up, at the Presidential Library level (Presidential Libraries is a quasi-agency that oversees us). My plan is to take this project up beyond the Ford Library level later in the spring.
Since the copyright police are onto me, I'd prefer to limit the Ford materials to a date no later than Jan.1, 1977. Later materials seem to have more copyright restrictions. Also, we have to sort out the materials that are designated restricted under the fields "use restriction(s)" or "access restriction(s)".
Michael and I are meeting with Ford Staffers on the 11th to clarify what fields in the templates they'll want, etc. I'll get a date range then too - I'm assuming Jan'77, but that may be wrong.
I'm thrilled that you are looking into the auto-extraction. I was hoping you would! It would be huge in terms of the contribution by Ford Lib/Presidential Libraries (take THAT, NARA!!) ) but also it seems like ground-breaking programming. Lots of uses for this once you get it figured out, which I know you will. Bdcousineau (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smallman2q - please don't waste your time messing around in ARC yet - I have an email that admits to "a database for each completed [ARC] project. It has the ARC ID, scanning specs, the folder title, page count, a link to the digital object on our website, and sometimes the box number. The White House Press Release database describes each press release at the item level instead of the folder level (it is big!)." ARGGHHH - I have no helpful or positive comment here, so I'm sitting on my typing hands - no yogic name for that pose, ;(
Most of the frames in contact sheets are out of focus. Also, for some of them (1), they're crooked. Modern commercial scanners can easily do 1200+ dpi. Do you know if NARA plans to rescan the contact sheets?Smallman12q (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD, further on the above. GIMP (free picture editor) > Tools > Transformation Tools > Rotate can easily fix any crooked photo. It's actually kinda of fun to do. The contact sheets are 200 dpi and images such as ones seen at here are 100 dpi. However, the Library photo description pages (e.g., see this), mention "reproductions (600 dpi scans or photographic prints)" available to the Library staff. If you look at this page, you will see a high resolution scan available for Image: A2428-14A (Ford with George Harrison and Billy Preston). Commons had that high resolution scan since 25 October 2010. (I edited File:Ford A2428 NLGRF photo contact sheet (1974-12-13)(Gerald Ford Library).jpg[4] to provide a link to it. That Hi resolution scan --File:Billy Preston, George Harrison, Gerald Ford, Ravi Shankar.jpg -- also was cropped into other images.) BD, how does the Library staff get ahold of the 600 dpi images? Do the 600 dpi images now exist in the Library databases? If so, would you check and see if Commons can get access to the 600 dpi images? Warning, this page says "High resolution scans from negatives $17.00." Any chance Commons can get the insider/free deal? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BD, also, Fallschirmjäger from the Wikipedia grapics lab was able to fix an out of focus image from a contact sheet.[5] Fallschirmjäger also expressed an interest in working on a contact sheet, separating out each image. While that specifically is not needed at this time for that contact sheet, perhaps you can contact Fallschirmjäger at w:User_talk:Fallschirmjäger and recruit him as our image graphics expert for the items we are getting from the Ford Library. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smallman12q, I don't think they will re-scan the contact sheet pages. As far as the extraction, I understand that extracting fuzzy images is not so useful. I've got my fingers crossed that the frame extraction happens, but I also know there are limitations - ie who wants pile of blurry, crooked images littering Commons. On the other hand, could we at least try with a small sample to see what happens? If it's a bust, I can live with that. =( did you see what Uzma Gamal added above, that there may be a guy to re-focus the images. I wrote to him to see if he could batch-focus and batch-straighten images that you extract. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uzma Gamal- the 600 dpi images are provided to researchers when they request a specific image. You found fordlibrarymuseum.gov/images/avproj/new-images which is where the scans requested by researchers go to get uploaded via FTP. There are random hi-res scan on our website as well. I've uploaded about 100 of those (oops, just got in trouble too - they had no ARC ID # - BAD gov doobie). The Ford Staff will NOT release to me anything that does not have an ARC ID. What y'all find on your own is a different story.
As far as I know, the Ford Photo Archivist is woefully behind in sending his images to ARC to get that ID assigned. This is why the next upload will documents only, with ARC ID #'s.
After this next upload, I would like to move to a different Presidential Library and get their photos uploaded. We can chat about that in another area.
I've contacted Fallschirmjäger- I'm hoping he can help. Can you image the possibilities if Smallman wrties an extraction script and then Fallschirmjäger can repair them?! oooooo! So glad you put that sheet up at the Graphics Lab. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of this will effect dpi, sadly. If the contact sheet images get extracted, focused and straightened, they will still only be useful for reference. Is it worth asking Wikimedia at large their opinion? Bdcousineau (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a reason to crop out the individual images in the contact sheets at this time. Your "move to a different Presidential Library and get their photos uploaded" comment made me shudder. It may be better to first get all the kinks worked out with the Ford images and use the results of that as a template to bring in other Presidential Library images. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shudder not, I agree with you! In terms of photos, we will "cut our teeth" on the 100 or so Ford images I've uploaded already - they will have ARC ID #'s soon, and we can use the new {{GFPLM-image-full/doc}} (many thanks Smallman12q for adjusting this). Once I get a response on {{PD-USGov-PresLib}} we can use that too. So yes, we will create a workable routine for photos, before embarking on any other Pres. Libs. collections. You guys are doing A LOT of work for me, and for no apparent reason other than the challenge, my contribution is to make it organized and easy-ish.
Smallman12q and I have done some document uploads already, and have a workable routine. If the Ford Staffers give me the db's and Smallman12q has the time, we will upload those new documents.
That being said, I would still like to try a small sample of extractions. Both Smallman12q and Fallschirmjäger have offered to do the extraction, and Fallschirmjäger has offered to repair images. I say let's try some, and see what the results are... maybe it won't be worth doing in the end, but I'd rather regret that, than regret not bothering.
But it's all baby steps. The next one is getting the db's from the Ford staff to upload the next group of Ford documents. That meeting is on Friday; it's WiR's first - hopefully he'll enjoy the inter-office politics! Please let me know that this has allayed any anxieties. Bdcousineau (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The photo to the right was recently extracted and enlarged from a contact sheet by Wikipedia's Graphics Lab. I'm hoping we all can get on board to the idea that the contact sheets themselves have images that can be used in Wikipedia. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did! It looks awesome; I even signed up. Great job. I think we are going to have some fun in the next months. I love this project, I never know what will happen next! Bdcousineau (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I recently learned that when {{PD-USGov-NARA}} was deprecated it was never replaced. I decided to make a new one, since NARA seems to be the only gov agency with a presence on Commons that doesn't have a PD tag. See PD tags.
I had help from Admin Jim, and WiR Michael and my idea was to get feedback from those strict copyright guys with whom I had discussions a few weeks ago. I plopped it onto their user pages but they've extended zero input.
So plan B: Uzma Gamal - you have the gift of getting people to respond to your queries - would you mind putting my sample onto the copyright discussion pages (Commons and Wikipedia) along with some context?
I'd like this tag to be the new PD license template for the current/future Presidential Libraries projects on Commons. I plan on having the NARA lawyers "ok" it, and the Presidential Library people too, effectively mainstreaming this project from NARA's point of view.
Regarding User:Bdcousineau/PD-USGov-PresLib, do you have any links to images where an employee or contractor of the Presidential Libraries pushed the camera button to take the photo? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Photos on the Ford contact sheets were taken by Federal employees (Kennerly, Moore, et. al.). 99% of Presidential photos taken of a President/family during his presidency would fall into this category. Prior to Ford, there were military employees taking the images. Because of increasingly complicated copyright issues after 1978, I'd like to work only in the Presidential Libraries collections prior to that date, until NARA/Wikipedia/I am comfortable dealing more closely with these on-going issues.
Our artifact images were taken by an unpaid student intern. However, there is a move on the table to hire a paid contractor to finish photographing our artifact collection. We will get a signed copyright release statement as a condition of employment. This will be written by the NARA lawyers for us.
At this point I cannot say who is imaging the artifacts at other Pres. Libs. Few of these Libraries have artifacts on their websites - the Kennedy Library has about 400 images of artifacts on their website, most likely the images were taken by non-Federal contractors. Obviously, if I get far enough to upload their images, I will check on the copyright status of those photos, as well as the subject of the photos.
I've read enough about tagging scanned/photocopied images on Commons to feel like we are ok there. Does this help? I will reply to your other question in a couple of hours - I have to run to a meeting. Have a great day! Sunny and warm-ish here. Bdcousineau (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kennerly, Moore, et. al were not employees or contractors of a Presidential Library when they pushed the camera button to take the photo, so User:Bdcousineau/PD-USGov-PresLib would not apply to them. While the unpaid student interns pushed the camera button to take the photos of the artifact images, it is the copyright in the artifact itself that needs to be licensed in commons. User:Bdcousineau/PD-USGov-PresLib would not apply to the copyright in the artifacts shown in most of the photos since the person creating the artifact work likely was not an employee or contractor of a Presidential Library when they created the artifact work. Per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-USGov-NARA, Template:PD-USGov-NARA was depreciated in part because it was more a source tag, than license tag. PD-USGov-PresLib seems to have a similar issue. Template:PD-USGov would work as a licensing tag and the page could have a sourcing template (e.g., User:Michael Barera/Sandbox) as well. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely right, thank you for pointing that out - that 'Kennerly, Moore, et. al were not employees or contractors of a Presidential Library when they pushed the camera button'. Do you think it's possible to have a license tag for the PresLib/NARA, if they are a repository, as opposed to a creator agency? Just thinking about the agencies in PD tags, they all create records, NARA/PresLib only collects and maintains records. Maybe using Template:PD-USGov is the best solution, and then providing the source template. After doing a quick check on how the Library of Congress handled their licensing, that's more or less what they did. OK! changing course!
However, a lot of the copyright discussion did separate the image taken by the photographer and the image in the photograph. So I would like to keep that in the mix. The Walters Art Museum did 2 distinct licenses - one for object, one for photo of the object. I'll follow their lead - again!
I don't have an understanding of the existing commons licenses and what they cover, but Alex Spade was the one who listed the PD-USGov-NARA for deletion,[6] so he probably does. By looking at the "User contributions" feature under "tools" to the left of the screen at his user page,[7] I can see that he still is contributing to commons. (That's part of my secret of how I get people to respond to my posts, e.g., they have to have posted with the last few days so I know they will get the message.) I posted a note on his talk page[8] to see if he would like to comment in this thread. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished my mock-up of the GFPLM-image-full template[edit]
I've just finished my mock-up of the GFPLM-image-full template. I think I've successfully engaged all of the fields, but one or two may have slipped through the cracks: still, it looks awfully impressive in terms of sheer size. Let me know if it passes muster with you. Also, just for kicks (although this may have implications on usage outside of Anglophone projects), you can try to view it in a different language (in this case, Spanish) to see what is internationalized and what is not. If you want me to change anything before Friday, just let me know (assuming my new classes don't eat up all my time tomorrow, haha!). Michael Barera (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be a good time to publicly admit my affection for Smallbot? Thanks so much for using it on this project and coding it in the first place, Smallman12q! Michael Barera (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem that Eisert is listed as the author of any of the uploaded contact sheets. Bot is done with adding creator templates. After Jarekt responds, I'll add categories...though I don't get why the template can't add them.Smallman12q (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to me to do the Daily Diary next, whaddya think? There is the possibility of linking the diary with a particular contact sheet, as suggested by Uzma Gamal. ARC ID # 4684664 until 4685559 - maybe they are easier to cull from ARC than from the website. Entering 4684664 into the first ARC search box gets you to the first one, can move to the others from there. Also in ARC are reading copies of the Pres speeches (Arc ID # 1252055 to 1253135). We can round out that group with the State Dinner Menus (again can create links to contact sheets and diary). These are not in ARC, but in an early FTP upload from October; I'll remind us of the name tomorrow. Kissinger's papers would be good too - [9] and [10]. I can look for the ARC ID's this weekend. Let me think some more, but now it's time to power down. Bdcousineau (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For arc, you said you'd provide the database. The pdfs says they were made Tuesday, January 08, 2013 in w:Microsoft Access. The pdfs are good for people, but I'd prefer the original w:Raw data in the form of the original access document/table...this shouldn't be a big deal.Smallman12q (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Archivist of the United States David Ferriero keynoting at Wikimania 2012
Look, I tried and failed to get the db's. Silly me, I was so hopeful! I did what was requested - adjusted {{GFPLM-image-ARC}} and showed the staff the changes you made to NARA's uploads (inserting our location tag, and our partnership tag). Now they want to spend time messaging other areas of NARA's upload -renaming cats, replacing {{NARA-image}} with {{GFPLM-image-ARC}}, even possibly retitling files - when I suggested that this would take a short time, and could we discuss ARC based uploads I was talked over. I had to stand up to a senior staff guy and ask him to let me finish talking. Then they discussed shutting down parts of the website until they could get ARC #'s assigned. I was told that it will take months to assign ARC #'s to that handful of images I uploaded in September. There was talk about making everything perfect before proceeding. They really really don't want anything to do with this. I've sent over stats and reports on the amazing outcomes of this project so far - all the foreign language articles we now have, all the DYK's/tweets/click-thrus/blogs, and there is all that attention for having a WiR. It's possible that after this next round of adjustments they'll release db's but that's what I thought this time.
WiR was there, you can get his take on it. I will investigate a few options next week to get the db's, including a FOIA request. That would get me into a lot of hot water.
I've only participated at two meetings with other Ford staff, but it seemed to me that yesterday other members of the staff were more hesitant (and perhaps resistant) to the project that I had noticed in the first meeting. The talk of taking images off of the website was really surprising to me (especially considering that everything is PD-USGov), but I can understand the desire to standardize the uploads that have already been made. My personal opinion is that quality is more valuable than quantity, and I do think that standard usage of {{GFPLM-image-full}} across all Ford uploads will be a good thing. Still, I'm starting to worry that we're not going to get more photographs (either historic or of physical objects) uploaded in the near future: I really think that it is those "traditional" photographs that will be and continue to be the most valuable donations that the Ford can make to Wikipedia. The contact sheets and documents are nice, but I don't think they'll ever be used at the same rates as the photographs. Anyway, here's hoping for the best! Michael Barera (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It really is a clash of cultures. In Commons and Wikipedia, no one gets permission to make changes. They just do it. If you look at all the changes to the Ford assassination attempt in Sacramento article I wrote,[11] no one asked me if they could change the article, they just did it. They also did not notify me of their change of the material I wrote and I did not expect them to. However, that is not how things work in the U.S. federal government. It is interesting to read the efforts at the Ford complex to change NARA's upload to commons through internal meeting. That is not how Commons works. Any or all of the Ford complex members could log onto Commons and make changes (maybe you can suggest that). Part of the issue is that having less than perfect NARA's image uploads in Commons is not a reflection on NARA and no one will see it that way. Commons does not need ARC #'s to adequately source a NARA image. The ARC # can be added later to the image page after the ARC # is assigned. If you read w:David Ferriero#Relationship with Wikipedia, Archivist of the United States David Ferriero supports NARA's use of Commons, so it's frustrating to read about the resistance to this Commons-Ford complex cooperation. However, it is clear that you are working hard to try to bridge this culture gap, BD, which is made even more difficult because you are trying to learn the Wiki way at the same time. With your energy, they did pick the right person for the job. If we just keep at it, things eventually will work out. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need the Daily Diaries for the words they provide when using the Commons search feature. They probably won't see much usage in Wikipedia as images, so I don't know whether they should have their own separate "File:". In that regard, I think the daily diaries should be place in the file for the contact sheets. For example, we might want to place the daily diary for 2 February 1975 in the file for each contact sheet having images taken on 2 February 1975. That way, when a word/term search hits a daily diary, the person can go to the contact sheet page and possibly find an image related to that daily diary term. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Number of radio interviews, newspapers articles (with photos!), and blog stories to be produced statewide about the Ford Library's first WiR - 7.
Number of Ford archival staff interested in releasing materials to Commons - 0. Zip, zilch, null, none.
Number of senior level Ford archival staff seriously discussing closing down parts of Ford Library/Museum website because materials are missing ARC ID #'s - all of them.
Are you kidding me?!?!? We are supposed to be about education/access, not ARC.
I had to have a $4 mocha drink just to bounce back. That's 2TBs bandwidth, I think. Bdcousineau (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This project is happening around/despite staff resistance. There is a lot of fear of doing it 'wrong'. We didn't actually move forward at all today. We are tasked with just endlessly re-adjusting work done by NARA, and this can go on for months. I agree about getting the templates right, but I thik at this point we can do that without Ford staff input. I suggest we continue to work on two levels - making the small, slow changes as suggested, while building a project that the Wiki community finds the most useful.
The fact that there was a discussion about removing materials from the website was shocking to me, I have to say! I'm pretty sure Ford would tell them to suck it up - he was about open-access and education all the way.
Do we need to change that template back - the one with the '- ARC' - remember it showed up looking for an ARC ID in a non-ARC ID file...
I'm going to ask Jim if it's reasonable to remove the empty categories NARA made, since the Ford staff hates the category names, and there is no-one to fill those categories. In the long term, we might be removing many of those cats designated for other presidential papers, so what do you think about that? Bdcousineau (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories you are talking about are just hidden (source) categories, so the Ford / NARA should be the ones calling the shots on them. If you like them, we'll keep them, and if you don't, we can let them go. As I tried to explain during the meeting, it is the "mainspace" categories (the larger text at the bottom of the page) that are really important to finding the images: the hidden categories are just for organization of "behind the scenes" stuff like sources and licensing. Michael Barera (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I note below, Commons and Wikipedia lists, categories, and templates should justify each other in a cohesive relationship. I'm guessing that the empty NARA categories were made without looking Commons and Wikipedia lists, categories, and articles on the topic. The Ford staff's views probably are consistent with Commons and Wikipedia lists, categories, and templates. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Gerald_Ford_Library).jpg){kind=link}
(Gerald_Ford_Library).jpg){kind=link}
Done I've changed all instances of "Moore" in our current uploads to "Robert Moore". Michael Barera (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
(Gerald_Ford_Library).jpg){kind=link}
Will wait...Smallman12q (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)(Gerald_Ford_Library).jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFord_A2428_NLGRF_photo_contact_sheet_%281974-12-13%29%28Gerald_Ford_Library%29.jpg&diff=86869755&oldid=85882256){kind=link}
.jpg)
Smallman12q (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
