Re: Attributing "attribution required" free images

On 10/30/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwellgmail.com> wrote:
>
> This one is easiest.  Let consensus behind a style,
then I'll work out
> the details and make sure we get it implemented.


Ok. Having said that I'm off on holidays for the next week,
maybe
someone else can start the process?
Drop a note at the village pump, maybe centralised
discussion and somewhere
else? Plus an explicit message here...

Commons has the data source side of this nearly covered
with
> information template.
>
> Basically some kind of magic word would be added to the
mediawiki
> markup that indicates the surrounded post-transclusion
text should be
> copied out into a separate column in the database.
Since commons
> already has structured data for authorship, once the
software is done
> this would require only a few template changes.


Presumably something like {{author:...}} along the lines of
{{defaultsort:...}} ? Then
you're saying we just update the relevant template to markup
that field
specially. Cool. We're assuming that raw text is a good
enough
representation for authorship...maybe it would be better to
be more explicit
like "attributiontext" or "authorname"
or something, to leave open the
possibility for more details later on like contact
information etc.

What do we do on Enwp?  ... I'm thinking that an effort to
move all
> free images to commons would actually take no more work
than trying to
> fixup the descriptions on enwp.


Not sure. For some reason the Commons people are openly
hostile to the
idea of a mass import of free media to
Commons. And in any case the attribution mechanism will be
useful for fair
use images. I suggest we leave
this as a problem for en people to solve in their own time -
as long as the
mechanism works, they can get around to rolling it out
whenever they want.

> - [[Image:]] tags should ideally show author
> > and licence information in a tooltip.
>
> This is an utterly trivial software change (on the
order of a few
> minutes) after the data is extracted and available in
the database.


A MediaWiki software change? Also when you say "utterly
trivial" do you mean
that you can yourself
perform it and get it committed? Out of curiosity, what's
the normal lead
time from a new feature going into
the repository, and it appearing at en.wp ?


>
> If we ignore text it's like the above, but ignoring
text is ignoring
> the elephant in the room.


Sure. There's an elephant and a rhino in the room. I'm happy
to deal
with just the rhino
for the moment.


> I fear that this last one is complicated and
significant enough of a
> change that its dead on arrivial, but it's the only way
that I think
> we could stand to seriously improve our text
attribution. :(
>
> It is indeed a hard problem. Let's stick with rhino
hunting.

Steve
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

On Oct 30, 2007 2:47 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewpgmail.com> wrote:
> Ok. Having said that I'm off on holidays for the next
week, maybe
> someone else can start the process?
> Drop a note at the village pump, maybe centralised
discussion and somewhere
> else? Plus an explicit message here...

Sounds good.

> Presumably something like {{author:...}} along the
lines of
> {{defaultsort:...}} ? Then
> you're saying we just update the relevant template to
markup that field
> specially. Cool. We're assuming that raw text is a good
enough
> representation for authorship...maybe it would be
better to be more explicit
> like "attributiontext" or
"authorname" or something, to leave open the
> possibility for more details later on like contact
information etc.

Yes.

> Not sure. For some reason the Commons people are openly
hostile to the
> idea of a mass import of free media to
> Commons.

AFAIK only because of things like Category:GFDL_Presumed and
other
mostly rubbish stuff.

> And in any case the attribution mechanism will be
useful for fair
> use images. I suggest we leave
> this as a problem for en people to solve in their own
time - as long as the
> mechanism works, they can get around to rolling it out
whenever they want.

Fair enough.

> > This is an utterly trivial software change (on the
order of a few
> > minutes) after the data is extracted and available
in the database.
>
> A MediaWiki software change? Also when you say
"utterly trivial" do you mean
> that you can yourself
> perform it and get it committed? Out of curiosity,
what's the normal lead
> time from a new feature going into
> the repository, and it appearing at en.wp ?

I can perform it and commit it myself.  Lead time 'depends'.
If there
are changes in SVN which require a database schema change
we'll lag
further behind SVN.  Right now we're about 3.5 weeks behind
SVN.

The bigger issue here is that this feature would depend on
the
metadata magic word stuff above which is a bigger change
which will
likely require a schema change.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-llists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l