Commons talk:Commons Conference 2018

how we will select the location of the conference

how we will select the location of the conference by vote ? Touzrimounir (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, we have to figure out which locations are actually feasible. Then, if more than one location is possible, we could have a vote between them. --MB-one (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the difficulty currently involved in transitioning US borders on a round trip, perhaps there could be a subconference in the US primarily for Americans. — Jeff G. ツ 22:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone in the US, not just actual Americans. Due to the, uh, interesting political situation here these days, non-citizens are sometimes advised not to leave because they may not be able to get back in. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travel costs

Are you really sure that traveling to Reykjavik is cheap and traveling to New York is expensive for Europeans? I randomly chose a date in April and my homebase in Vienna in opodo and got lower prices for the journey to New York. --Ailura (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Letzten Monat gab es einen kurzfristigen Flug nach Keflavik für 148 Euro. Für blind November gestochert zahlreiche Flüge BER-KEF um die 150 Euro. Ohne nachzusehen, dafür kommt man nicht über den Teich. Und das Leben in den USA ist nicht billiger als auf Island. --Ralf Roleček 15:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im April dasselbe Bild wie im November: BER/TXL-KEF 188 EUR, VIE-KEF 518 EUR und 10 Stunden unterwegs (New York 478 EUR). --Ailura (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sei mal etwas kreativ und glaube den Suchmaschinen nicht alles. Wien-Ost nach SXF kostet 10-20 Euro. --Ralf Roleček 02:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sxf wird aber demnäxt geschlossen. --Ailura (talk) 07:08, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Following the split-off of the Photographers Meetup from the Commons Conference, I propose, to take Iceland off the list completely and concentrate on the other three locations. --MB-one (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope change

What is the reason for changing the scope from "Commons:Photographers Conference 2018" to "Commons:Commons Conference 2018" and to "split-off of the Photographers Meetup from the Commons Conference"? I can't find any discussion to this. --Stepro (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Find ich auch komisch. --Ralf Roleček 02:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matti und ich haben heute gechattet und mir ist dabei klar geworden, dass er eine andere Veranstaltung im Kopf hatte als ich. Das Commons Photographers Usergroup Meeting wird trotzdem stattfinden. Ich finde diese Entwicklung gar nicht schlecht. Immerhin gibt es jetzt einiges an Momentum. Und zwei Veranstaltungen (eine größere Commons-Konferenz evtl. mit 100–200 Teilnehmer evtl. in Barcelona und ein kleineres Workshop-Treffen der Usergroup mit evtl. 30–40 Teilnehmern auf Island) sind ja besser als gar keine Veranstaltung (derzeitiger status quo). Matti und ich müssen nur noch etwas daran arbeiten den jeweiligen "Scope" der unterschiedlichen Veranstaltungen weiter herauszuarbeiten und dann ist für Jeden etwas dabei: für die Fotografen genauso für diejenigen, die etwas breiter diskutieren möchten. Ich habe mir auf jeden Fall schon jetzt vorgenommen, an beiden Veranstaltungen teilzunehmen. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ich glaube es wäre sinnvoller, einer Großkonferenz längeren Vorlauf zu geben und das erst 2019 zu machen. Usergrouptreffen im Frühsommer 2018 finde ich super, wobei ich in Island die fehlende Panoramafreiheit für einen Nachteil halte. --Ailura (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wunsch, sich auf Island zu treffen, wurde während der Wikimania in Montréal von verschiedenen Fotografen an mich herangetragen. Ich werde in den nächsten Tagen eine eigene Seite für das Usergrouptreffen anlegen. Dann können wir über Alternativen beraten. Persönlich finde ich Island reizvoll, starke Präferenzen habe ich allerdings nicht. --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Es ist nicht so, dass ich was persönliches gegen Island hätte, da würde ich durchaus gerne mal hinfahren, mehr Gegenargumente fallen mir dann ohnehin nicht ein. --Ailura (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allzuviel ist es nicht, was unter Panoramafreiheit fällt. Steine, Schluchten, Moose, Himmel, Wasser sind so 99% der Motive --Ralf Roleček 22:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

neiter do soccer players (if i find any). --Ailura (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should keep this discussion in English, so everybody understands, what is going on. Several ideas have accidentally been mixed together: a) the idea for a photography meeting (most likely in Iceland) with about 30 Commons photographers and b) the idea of a Commons Conference with the possibility to discuss several topics related to Commons, create a stronger sense of community and of course take awesome photos, while we are meeting in an interesting yet reachable part of the world. As Frank already stated, this misunderstanding between us had been resolved following a direct conversation between the two of us. We will have to figure out now, who is interested in organization/participation of either of those events. It has to be clear, that nobody has to choose between the two possible events; participation in both should be generally possible. Therefore I proposed, to not longer consider Iceland as a location for the Commons Conference, because, the Photographers Meetup will likely happen there already. However the scope of the Commons Conference itself has not been changed, as documented on the project page. --MB-one (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a bluelink for Commons Photographers Usergroup Meeting, be bold. --Ailura (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We had no kind of meetings, conferences or similar stuff in the past 13 years about Commons and now we should have 2? Come on, guys. Why don't we all come once together and agree on further steps? Meeting twice is an extra effort in terms of time (sacrifying vacation days for that) for all of us not to speak of the budget. I'll hardly manage to attend both and don't see the need, either. Poc o² 08:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Poco_a_poco. This is silly. I want to participate; there is no way I can even imaginably afford to travel to two separate conferences. Also, I was aware of the other page and only now found this one. Why make us work out which of two separate, presumably overlapping, conferences to attend? At the very least, if you cannot somehow resolve your differences and make this one conference, at least could you prominently cross-reference these at the top of their respective pages? - Jmabel ! talk 05:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. The Photographers Usergroup Meeting will not be a conference, and that's why I was confused at first, too. The "Commons Conference 2018" will be a conference, and that's a complete different thing to the photographers meeting. --Stepro (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Dear @MB-one:

I think it is time to open the vote for the location, and we need to inform the foundation about the date --Touzrimounir (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transition from category system?

I'm a bit disturbed by the idea that "structured data" should replace the current brilliant, universal, simple, intuitive and promising system of categorization. Especially we, Commons users, have a bad experience with WikiData - wrong understanding of the relation between an item and their articles&categories blocked an effective interconnection between Wikipedias and Commons, and next to the current thoroughly interconnected system of categories, a chaotic mess of random, unmaintainable, unordered and mostly redundant "properties" has an unrealistic aspiration to replace categories. Although most of properties are reciprocal, they really don't work as reciprocal. And in the last 4.5 years, almost none of the fatal deficiencies is rectified properly.

It is useful to develop "structured data" to extract and process EXIF metadata, to replace maintenance, technical and copyright tags etc., to code and process location data, to make file description pages more structured etc. but please do not destroy item-categorization system rashly! The categorization functions should be rather improved and developed. Structured data can be rather a tool which can help to make categorization more usable, reliable and effective. --ŠJů (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ŠJů,

Just to be clear, the Structured Data for Commons project is independent of this conference. However talks and discussions about the project and the transition will be part of the conference program. I recommend you to join the conference, where you will have plenty of opportunity to talk to other Commons users and probably the project team about your concerns.

--MB-one (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ŠJů,

To me the current system is far to be optimal. It is a patchy hack due to MediaWiki limitation. Search is inconsistent, specially across several categories, which leads people to create micro-categories, and then conflicts over these. It is in English only, which is a major flaw on a multilingual website. This should be corrected, and a system based on a real database would certainly be better. The editing interface needs to keep the ease of editing we have now, and this is a challenge. Finally, this should be discussed on the relevant place, not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ŠJů and others - from the WMF/WMDE team's perspective I want to emphasize that the Structured Data on Commons project will definitely NOT remove categories on the software/technical side. We keep all existing systems in place. It will still be possible to work with categories. What we do want to do, is to improve search on Wikimedia Commons so that it will also be possible to search multilingually via structured data, e.g. outside the category system you should also be able to search for all 'schilderijen' that depict a 'fazant' in my native language (Dutch). To what extent this will work together with categories is something you and other community members can hopefully decide together after having experienced the new system for a while and finding out how it works for you. Best! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The current category system provides a stable overview of a certain topic, linked forth and back from many places, and still hasn't any (stable) counterpart on Wikidata. In that sense is the category system not optimal but the best we have.

I certainly think improvements are possible, but I think that ŠJů is trying to say that the category system we have on Commons is crucial for the basic work done on Commons, and that we should have the highest awareness and carefullness with any changes done there.

Simply replacing the category system by a "system based on a database" as Yann says or seems to suggest, is very likely going to disrupt the basic processes on Commons, as at such a database is almost completely insufficient for what is minimal needed at Commons.

I do however see possibilities in combining the stable categories with a database, like for providing multilingualism and more search options, but that thus in addition (hanging database items to categories) instead of replacement (downgrading). Romaine (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: My idea is that category functionality should be developed (every single category link can be separated from the categorized subpage and autonomized as a database element, preserving character of the current user interface - subsequently these relation elements can be supplemented by a parameter of type of relation (hyponymy, meronymy, creator/work etc.) and become something like "properties". On the other side, reciprocal Wikidata properties can be also separated from the item page and autonomized as database elements, similar or even compatible with the mentioned categorization elements, and reciprocal properties can become really reciprocal. The two systems can merge in some time. Regrettably, Wikidata grounds were designed very short-sightedly and there is no will to rectify whichever of their defects and to make Wikidata really better. However, if we are in the situation that even simple solutions of clear problems are not achievable and bad decisions are done often, I have not strong hope that some simple and brilliant fundamental solution can ever become pushed through. At first I'm afraid of premature steps (as were premature and coerced implementation of grossly imperfect UploadWizard, VisualEditor or Wikidata and non-effective feedback). Sorry for my imperfect English, I hope my ideas are understandable at least a bit. --ŠJů (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to remember that Wikidata is not the only option if investment is available to improve commons. There will be occasions when wikidata entries map to a category on commons, just as many Wikipedia articles map to a category on commons. However there will also be occasions where the Wikidata entry or the Wikipedia article maps to an overpopulated category that needs to be subdivided.... If there is developer time available to improve commons, it would be good to make the category system multilingual. For example if categories included information on that category name in different languages, and those people who had preferred that language in their preferences could use their language in search and hotcat as well as having that category displayed in the name in their language while they were logged in. As for the current Wikidata proposals for commons, I think it would be more useful to upgrade catalot to to support category redirects. An uncontentious but useful change that would speed up categorisation of our backlog of uncategorised files. Other useful changes would be to implement lookalike and geocoding software so we could see other images that look similar or geocode to the same geographical category. Surely by now we should be able to at least categorise by country over 90% of the files that have coordinate data? WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Romaine,

Why do you think "such a database is almost completely insufficient"? That presumes a lot of things which are completely open now.

Each category can be based on a Wikidata entry, and these entries can be multilingual. Now the challenge is to merge that possibility with the easy of adding, removing, and renaming categories on Commons. It should be transparent to Commons users. We need a much better user interface to Wikidata that we have now, but I don't see any reason why it can't be done. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, this I tried to explain in short in my previous message. I also indicated there that a database can be used to improve the category system.

If it is indeed true that a lot of things are completely open now, that is alarming. Because that would mean that it still has not been noticed how vital and important Commons categories are. (After the many interviews there have been about this topic.)

What matters concerning the use of databases, is how the (use of a) database is implemented. As said, if it is suggested that the category system should be replaced by a database, this is going to disrupt the basic processes on Commons. If the category system is enriched with a database (just as that the file pages are going to be enriched by database fields), that could solve the long-term wish to have multilingual categories, can make searching easier, will solve more issues, and can make Commons much more multilingual. (And this is not based on some presumptions, but on an analysis I made for the structured data team earlier. Big decisions in the beginning of the development matter much to how later it will be and can be implemented.) Romaine (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Romaine: I think there is a misunderstanding because of vocabulary. A database is only the back-end of a classification system. Most people do not even know it exists. And that's the case of the actual category system, but it is not really structured. The idea is to replace the actual not-structured database by a structured one. A lot of things are completely open now because we are at the beginning of the design process. At this stage, the fear is completely unwarranted. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If creating a new category requires you to go to wikidata and create something there first then I have an objection. If someone wants to write a bot that continually import all new categories into wikidata and get Wikidata agreement that "has a category on Wikimedia commons" is sufficient justification for an entry on Wikidata then I have less concern. WereSpielChequers (talk) 10:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. We need an automated system which create the category in WD when it is created in Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would make things like Category:People sweating and Category:Blue and yellow sports uniforms valid Wikidata objects. I don't believe everything needs to be possible. --Ailura (talk) 08:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's where a real database system would be much better than our current categories. With a database system, we could search across any number of categories and subcategories, and we would not need to make such silly micro-categories like we have now. As a consequence, it would reduce most of the dispute over categories. It also would be possible to create a "safe search" without any additional filter (just by removing "nude" for all results. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a procedure for challenging Wikimedia commons categories if you think they shouldn't exist, and a policy at Commons:Categories. That procedure is on commons and should remain there. Just as each Wikipedia has a procedure to decide whether or not to have an article, and Wikidata stores an entry for Wikipedia articles that exist. If Wikidata doesn't want to store info on all Wikimedia Commons categories then Wikidata may not be the appropriate place to store structured data for commons. WereSpielChequers (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where current discussions on this topic were happening. Commons talk:Structured data seems to be it.

2 pages for 1 purpose

Hello, there are 2 pages created to coordinate the preparation of the Commons Conference, this one and Commons:Photographers User Group Meeting 2018, should they be merged in one? As the other one is older, I suggest to merge this one in the other one. Poc o² 03:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with splitting the photographers conference from this one you can raise that in the thread Commons_talk:Commons_Conference_2018#Scope_change. WereSpielChequers (talk) 08:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually do and I stated it in that thread, thanks, WereSpielChequers Poc o² 08:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual participation?

While interested, I'm unlikely to be able to attend anywhere more that a full day's drive from my home. I'm sure there are many other Wikimedians who would be interested but have financial/time/location/other constraints. Might at least some degree of online participation be possible via livestreaming some of the events, if not something more significant? A thought, Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Infrogmation: thank you for this idea! We will look into the possibility of live streaming for at least some parts of the conference. Regarding financial constraints: will will also try to make scholarships and/or travel grants available for highly active Commons contributors (similarly to Wikimania and other conferences). Cheers --MB-one (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gear request

One the hardest things about this will be so many of us will be carrying gear, and insuring that gear while on the "road". Something that would be great is for where ever the event is held to have a variety of hire gear available so we dont need to carry much more than just a body and a single lens. Gnan garra 04:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 possible session topics

As it becomes clear that the Commons:Photographers User Group Meeting 2018 is not going to be at all what I understood it to be, it's clear that if I'm going to attend either event it will be this one. I had two topics I'd proposed originally for the other conference; I'm wondering whether either (or both) might fit into this one instead. Either could be more of a presentation or more of a round table:

How the scope of Commons relates to the scope of Wikipedia (in particular, a lot of content we should build up in Commons for reasons other than those of Wikipedia).
- Part of where I want to go here is to discuss what I take on when I go to photograph a building, neighborhood, etc. I feel that far too often people think all we want/need is one picture for a Wikipedia article and really overlook how much more of value they could do while in the same place.
The role of admins: what functions are and are not specific to admins, including gray zones; whether there is anything that should change about this.

Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia Conference 2019

Dear ALL

Me and @Hamed Gamaoun: , we discussed to organize The Commons Conference 2019 in Tunisia and we are ready to plan the conference and apply for a grant with the collaboration of Photography Organization as a fiscal sponsor, if there's no objections from the community, We would like to discuss this proposal before August 15th. --Touzrimounir (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Touzrimounir: ,

thank you for the offer. I'm still willing to support this proposal and can help organize in 2019 (I'm too busy this year). --MB-one (talk) 11:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Touzrimounir. +1 from me as well. As long as it is a single unified conference (as we discussed in-person at the last Commons meetup), I'd be happy to support in any way I can. In the mean time, I think it is best we move this page to 2019. May I? Best regards, Reh man 01:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm willing to help organize this conference in anyway possible too, if it is still being considered!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 in 2019. --Matthias Süßen (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Hamed Gamaoun: @MB-one: @Matthias Süßen: @Jamie Tubers: currently I am preparing the grant,can you please help me to enrich the grant before sending it to the WMF --Touzrimounir (talk) 13:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pinging me. Welldone for taking on the task to host the conference. I'll review the grants page over the next days. Doesn't seem like there's any problems with its present state though :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]