User talk:Fabrice Florin (WMF)

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

Multimedia Events at Wikimania[edit]

Are you going to Wikimania 2014 in London? If so, I would love to meet you there in person.

Our multimedia team is hosting a number of discussions and presentations, which are listed here.

Wednesday, August 6
  • Upload Wizard Discussion - 14:00 GMT - 90 mins. (Frobisher 3)
Thursday, August 7
  • Structured Data Discussion - 10:00 GMT - 90 mins. (Frobisher 3)
  • Media Viewer Discussion - 14:00 GMT - 90 mins. (Frobisher 3)
Friday, August 8
  • Multimedia Overview - Fri., August 8, 11:30 GMT - 30 mins. (Auditorium 2)
  • The State (and Fate) of Video in Wikimedia - 12:00 GMT - 30 mins. (Auditorium 2)
Sunday, August 10
  • Multimedia Roundtable - 11:30 GMT - 120 mins. (Boardroom)
  • A Culture of Kindness - 15:30 GMT - 30 mins. (Auditorium 1)

We invite you to sign up for the sessions that interest you on this special page on the Wikimania site.

Hope to see you at one of these events! Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Dismiss Interactions archive cropped.png[edit]

And also:

Hi Fabrice Florin (WMF). These files of yours are listed in Category:Pages using Information template with syntax errors. Could you please have a look and try to fix the syntax errors? Thank you. Leyo 17:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Leyo. I am at Wikimania in London now, then on vacation for a week. OK if I look into this in mid-August? Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I took a look, and I (think I) fixed one of them -- it appears that the template expects the "date" parameter to contain a properly formatted date, and the extra text "taken on..." is confusing it. (I'm not certain this is the issue, but it seems like it.) Simple fix, if I'm right. -Pete F (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Pete, much appreciated. I tried to fix one of these myself, but lack the technical skills to do this.
Also, sorry for not responding to your notes about other photos nominated for deletion. I have been too swamped in recent weeks to do this type of extra-curricular work, so I suspect many of these photos have now been deleted, which seems so sad and unnecessary :(
One possible solution which was suggested at our upload wizard discussion here at Wikimania is the idea of a 'draft mode', where an image could be stored as long as needed to add required metadata -- rather than deleting it and forcing the contributor to start all over again. This seems like a very promising approach to improve the current methodology, which now discourages new users from contributing to our knowledge base. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fabrice, I am a bit surprised that a WMF staff member does obviously not have basic skills in wiki markup. The syntax errors are caused by incorrectly formatted external links (see fix). --Leyo 00:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Aha, thank you for pointing that out -- I had missed this somehow (even though I corrected it "by mistake")!
As long as we are discussing what surprises us -- I am surprised, @Fabrice Florin (WMF), Fabrice:, that you do not seem to care that you and your staff have disregarded the simple requirements many users of Flickr and Wikimedia Commons have established, who generously give their files to the public, with very modest requirements (attribution and, in some cases, share-alike). In addition to setting a terrible example for other organizations, thereby undermining the work of Wikimedians in Residence who have to explain why "best practices" are ignored by the organization most intimately involved with Wikimedia projects, I would think it would be rather humiliating for the WMF to advertise so brazenly that it cannot handle the straightforward requirements of the Creative Commons licenses it chose, among other reasons, for their simplicity. I would think you would thank me for pointing out such embarrassing mistakes and giving you the opportunity to correct them (by fixing the attribution or by deleting them), but instead you tirelessly complain about my behavior -- compounding your the problems by inaccurately accusing me of harassment on multiple occasions. -Pete F (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
These were each fixed by using correct wiki markup. It is surprising to see WMF staff make such simple mistakes, then allow them to sit unfixed for this long because of a convention, then to ignore subsequent good faith requests to fix them. Eddymason (talk) 06:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Please allow me a week or two to deal with this issue. I am currently in London, following the Wikimania conference, and am not in a position to address your concerns right away. But I intend to address them as soon as I can. Please do not delete these files, which are important to us and to the many community members who work with our team. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fabrice Florin (WMF): you can address the most important issue in less time than it took to type what you did above: simply say something like "I acknowledge that Pete has not harassed me, and am sorry for suggesting otherwise. It's fine with me if Pete or anybody else redacts my words to the contrary." As for these files, nobody has suggested deleting them, and I don't see any reason why they would. -Pete F (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Pete: Thanks for expressing your concern about my earlier statements about a possible pattern of harassment. In hindsight, I acknowledge that my statements may have been too harsh — and I wish to withdraw them at this time, with my apologies for any inconvenience that they may have caused you. For the record, I think it is fair to say some of your actions towards me in recent months could be perceived as overly negative and/or disruptive: first you nominated dozens of my images for deletion, then you started an RfC against the Media Viewer project which I manage, then you tried to disable that feature on Enwiki, and went on to express your disapproval for pretty much every project I have managed at WMF in your Arbcom statement. So one can understand how I might have felt especiall stressed by these actions, leading me to perceive them as harassment. However, since I brought up those issues, I have noted a significant improvement in your behavior, and am pleased to see that our relationship is now evolving towards a more collaborative approach, where you are now helping me update the meta-data for my images in good faith, and are also engaging other community members to do the same -- for which I am deeply grateful. So in the spirit of that constructive relationship, I would like to state clearly that you are not harassing me and that I may have misinterpreted your intent during this particularly stressful period. I am sorry if my words harmed you, and I look forward to a more productive partnership with you in the future. You have my permission to strike out any statements of mine in which I point to a possible pattern of harassment, with a link to this statement. I hope this can clear things up between us and that we can start anew towards our shared objectives. Be well. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Pete, I suggest to forget the past issues. I see this is a progress, indeed. From my experience in many communities, including WMF projects, I can honestly say people (including me) usually loss their self control and respond in a negative way, usually. But it is a big obstruction that prevents any chances for progress in a collaborative environment. We need to take utmost care to avoid such situations. Hope we can make a difference and the MV issue will be settled in a good way. Jee 02:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fabrice Florin (WMF): Thank you for acknowledging that. It has never been my intention to cause you stress, but I am sorry if my actions have done so. I share your hope that we can find ever more productive ways to work together. -Pete F (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): Mid-August has past a few days ago and the file pages still need to get fixed. --Leyo 21:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your corrections. --Leyo 20:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:

And also:

Hi Fabrice, this is another collection of images with the same issue noted here. Of course, if you wish to put the time into fixing the attribution on each image, it would be good to keep them; but last time you stated you do not have the time. Retaining these copyright violations on Commons until you have time in the indefinite future is damaging to efforts to establish clear principles for all users, so if you don't have time to fix them, they should be deleted until you do have time. -Pete F (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC) Pete F (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pete F . Please allow me a week or two to deal with this issue. I am currently in London, following the Wikimania conference, and am not in a position to address your concerns right away. But I intend to address them as soon as I can. Please do not delete these files, which are important to us and to the many community members who work with our team. Thanks for your patience and understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
A deletion review allows a week in almost all cases. You'll be pleased to know that a couple of volunteers have taken the time to correct most of the omissions in this case; only one of the files, as of now, still lacks needed attribution. -Pete F (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Multimedia Vision 2016.pdf[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Multimedia Vision 2016.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

206.29.182.224 00:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Multimedia Project Slides.pdf[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Multimedia Project Slides.pdf has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pete F (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair use at Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hi Fabrice Florin, I noticed your comment where you stated:

But before we jump through all these hoops, are we absolutely convinced that all this work is really needed? With all due respect, it seems that we may be going overboard, in a situation that looks like fair use to me.

Please make yourself familiar with this resolution of the WMF board according to which Wikimedia Commons is obliged to accept free content only without exceptions. In consequence, fair use material must not be uploaded to Commons. This is also covered by this local policy. This is no nit-picking as you claim but a very important precondition to build a repository of free media that can be used not just in the United States but also internationally independent from a particular context (in regard to copyright law). You should note that fair use is a concept of US law with no close equivalents in other legislations. The situation on en:wp and some other projects is different, as they have an exemption doctrine policy (EDP) as laid out in the WMF resolution. But Commons is not allowed to have an EDP for obvious reasons as it serves all WMF projects. Regards, AFBorchert (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

File:Structured Data - Slides.pdf[edit]

The cheetah image in this slide is neither available under cc-by-sa nor is it eligible for GFDL license migration. The only CC-compatible license it's available under is noncommercial. Do you have permission from the author to use it under non-restricted cc-by-sa? If not please try to get permission or replace the image. I do not want to start another DR becaue there's again a license issue with material uploaded by WMF staff. --Denniss (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

This PDF also inaccurately attributes the photo to two (fictional?) people -- Jules Cronopio and Robert Capa. It was taken by an actual person, who has required attribution. In addition, on p. 11 this file indicates that the photo is in the Public Domain, that it is released under CC BY and CC BY-SA. None of these is true.
These are the same issues under discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Multimedia Project - Wikimedia Foundation -- regarding the use of the same photo. This is a new upload. How are the same mistakes being repeated? What can be done to stop this? Perhaps WMF should hire somebody to check the licenses on files before staff uploads them? It's not my job to come up with an answer, but...a lot of resources (both volunteer and staff) are being spent on correcting issues after the fact. It would be a lot less expensive (to both WMF and the volunteer community) to simply avoid making this kind of mistake to begin with. -Pete F (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi guys, in this particular case, I used the exact same credit for the Cheetah as was recommended by other community members for this file. When I asked community members if attributions for this file were correct, I was told they were. I have also asked our designer going forward to use the actual author names in mockups. Though it seems that if we are providing the correct attribution, it would not be such an issue if the mockup itself is not absolutely perfect: It is commonplace in the web development world to use mockups that are incomplete. But if this issue persists, perhaps we should stop posting our mockups on Commons altogether, as it is clearly making life difficult for everyone. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It's worthwhile to have files like this on Commons for many reasons. However, if it must be a choice (and -- must it???) between (a) frequently uploading files that represent Wikimedia in a bad light to the people who have generously released their IP under a free license, or (b) uploading no files at all, then (b) is the clear choice. Far better if you pursue (c), find a way to get these right to begin with, and when mistakes are pointed out, handle them gracefully and efficiently and without putting all the burden on volunteers or asking for special favors. Are you saying there is no chance of (c)? Yes, (c) could be challenging, but it's not an insurmountable challenge. (One very simple step that would eliminate a great deal of hassle -- I would urge you to consider using photos you take yourselves, or perhaps very old public domain photos, for mockups, instead of the copyrighted files you have been choosing up till now. Either approach would simplify the attribution and documentation issues tremendously.) -Pete F (talk) 19:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Or use CC 0 licensed works which do not require any attribution or link to license as a compulsory term (but still preferred). (In screen shots, usage of Template:Wikimedia project screenshot in the file page may be useful. Note the message on it "To the uploader: Include always the authors and licenses of all images in the screenshot.") Jee 02:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Fabrice Florin (WMF): Whether you publish the PDFs on Commons or not, you would still be violating the license or in some cases intellectual property infringement (when it comes to copyrighted work [fair-use] that we can't host). Don't you think that WMF should be leading by example by using free-use licensed work in accordance to the license conditions and respecting the creator? I know that I wouldn't be impressed if my work was used in violation of the licensing by the foundation. Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Denniss, Jkadavoor, Pete F, Bidgee: Thanks for your helpful recommendations on best practices for creating future mockups and uploading them to Commons. I have invited our designer to use my own images from Flickr in his next mockups — to simplify attribution and licensing requirements (all my photography is CC-BY-SA-3.0). Public domain images seem less useful because legal interpretations of PD vary between jurisdictions, and sometimes images are incorrectly tagged as public domain or may be missing author or source information; they are also a less important use case than CC licenses, which we are optimizing for. Either way, we will exert reasonable efforts to post these new mockups on Commons: the biggest obstacle for us now is the amount of time required to get all the metadata right, when we have to iterate new designs very quickly; but if we are mostly using work that we own, using the same attributions and licenses each time, it reduces the workload tremendously, and will make easier for us to meet our goals. Thanks for your guidance and understanding. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

user pages[edit]

On your user page, there is a section called multimedia vision 2016, and the link to the vision is prefaced with the "commons:" interwiki code. This causes the vision link to appear as a redlink. I tried to remove it for you but the filter disallowed it. Hope this helps. :) 2607:FB90:2C2B:B63E:69BE:51DA:B38:AF7C 20:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed MV hover menu[edit]

I've spotted this, if its anything like what is currently the MV alpha site, I don't think it would be enough to have a pop-up stating "You need to attribute the author" (I'm also assuming the pop-up is currently non-function? Since I was unable to copy or even select the html tab).

My main worry is that it is easily ignored, since the file downloads as soon as you click on the download icon and the "reader/downloader" is likely to ignore the pop-up or just close the MV window. Also CC-BY-SA must also attribute the license, so any wording should be "You must attribute the author and license", unlike CC-BY where it's only the author. What I think would be good, as a photographer and contributor, is to have the image and license with the attribution in a zip file, this would reduce the chance of the requirements to be ignored by the "reader/downloader" Though not sure how possible it would be under the current set-up, but that could change with the "proposed" structured data.

I'm stating this on your talk page to give you an opportunity to respond before I post my feedback on Media Viewer consultation on Meta. Bidgee (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bidgee: Thanks for your feedback about Media Viewer.
Note that what you are seeing on the prototype is still experimental -- and will change in coming days: for example, the download panel is not functional, as you noticed. Also, I don't think the download should start until you have explicitly asked for it -- as we now do in the current version.
We plan to tweak the copy for the 'Attribute the author' prompt in the download, share and embed panels: I am now working with our legal counsel and designer to propose a better wording (e.g.: 'You must credit the author: Click for attribution and license'). Note that from a legal perspective, our counsel's view is that Media Viewer already complies with general license terms for Creative Commons, so extra features like this attribution prompt are 'nice to have' but not required.
Also, I will discuss your idea of a Zip file with both image and metadata with our software engineer, to see if it could work; but this seems pretty unusual and is not considered a 'best practice' to my knowledge, as I don't see any other large sites doing this. On a related note, we have discussed the idea of injecting attributions and licenses in the file's EXIF metadata, which may be possible in the long-term, though controversial. Either way, you are correct that we would not take on this type of task in the next release, which is focused on critical improvements that can be done quickly. For now, we are happy to offer several different ways for users to copy and paste credits in plain text, wikitext and HTML, with more options and links than on the File page.
Thanks again for inviting me to comment on your concerns and suggestions for improvement, which are greatly appreciated :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Private photo[edit]

Dear Fabrice, we met at Wikimania 2014, you asked for card exchange, I gave you mine, then you held it beside my face and started to take a photo, I asked you to stop and explain that, you said because you have difficulties to remember people and promised NOT to publish them - only then I agreed, expressly saying only if you NEVER EVER publish that photo, neither in Wikis nor anywhere else.

Now we met again at WikiCon, you came up to me and asked "Don't I know you from somewhere?" I said "Yes, from Wikimania, you took that photo to remember, what I didn't really like". In the following conversation it became obvious that you thought you published it already, but would promise to "take it down".

Therefore I now ask you in written form

  1. again: certainly NEVER to publish this photo anywhere (or any other photo you took of me).
  2. to tell me HONESTLY if you already did so, and where (do NOT post any link here, but send via private mail to me).
  3. to COMPLETELY delete all photos you took of me and to confirm this deletion by written statement to me. Please delete them permanently from your camera, computer, mobile, memory cards/sticks, hard drives, online storages, backups, and anywhere else too. Please send the photo(s) to me via e-mail once and then also delete that mail/attachment from your sent folder.

I really feel that you abused my AGF. --.js (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi .js: It was good to meet you again at WikiCon. I just checked my private photo archive and do not have any photo of you, so I must have deleted it as soon as you asked me to. So you can rest assured that it was never published and your identity was never disclosed. Thanks for all that you did to make Wikicon such a great conference. I appreciate your following up on this issue and am glad that no harm was done. Be well. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 11:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for answering, but can you please help me understand what you write? You say you "must have deleted" it within the last 4 days, but you do not remember doing it, but only because you didn't find a picture in a brief archive search you did this morning. Right?
And please help us understand: Where do you publish those pictures (contact-card + face) of all those Wikimedians that you take? --.js (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi .js: Thanks for following up. As you may have noticed, I am a prolific multimedia creator and take a lot of photos, for both personal and journalistic purposes. So I don't always know the status of every picture I take, which is why I needed to check my archive to respond to your question. I am also very responsive to requests like yours: if someone asks me to delete a picture I took of them, I do it right away. So in your case, it appears that I immediately deleted your photo in-camera, since it never made it to my computer archive. To answer your other question, I very rarely take a photo of someone with their business card, and I have only done this about a dozen times in my life. I only do this when I think I might have a reason to correspond with the person and our time is limited (in your case, I thought we might want to discuss videos related to your work); I typically do not publish these photos anywhere, I just keep them in my archive for personal reference.
Also note that I edit my photos extensively before publishing them: of the 40k photos I shoot every year, only about 5% are posted on my Flickr account; and only a small fraction of those are re-posted on Commons, Facebook or other sites. The reason I am so selective is that I prefer to only post my best pictures, rather than share everything I shoot. Many people have showed appreciation for this selective publishing approach and told me they enjoy the quality of my photographs. I hope this answers your questions. Please let me know if I can provide any more information. Best regards. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds very much different from what you said and did at Wikimania, when you first ensured me not to publish it and then you took the photo. And we did not talk any more after that. So you would have taken the photo only to delete it right afterwards? Sounds strange to me. And thank you for your Flickr link. I just checked some albums there and found already nine pictures of me - Why do you say that you "do not have any photo of" me? --.js (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Jimmy Wales at Wikimania 2014 closing ceremony - annoying user good content.jpg[edit]

Hey mate, when you uploaded the above photo to Flickr, you did so with CC-BY-SA-2.0 licencing. As per the outcome of the DR, Jimmy has finally confirmed that the text is available under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. Therefore, the photo would also need to be licenced under a CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence. User:Cirt has changed the licencing to CC-BY-SA-3.0, however, only the author of the photo, that means you, can make release the photo under this licence. Can you please confirm whether you are fine with licencing your photograph under CC-BY-SA-3.0. russavia (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

  • It has a CC BY-SA 3.0 license in EXIF; so only a technical issue as Flickr is still using 2.0 licenses. Moreover adapting from CC BY-SA 2.0 to CC BY-SA later versions are OK. Jee 02:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the heads-up, russavia -- and thanks for the prompt response, Jkadavoor. Yes, most of my photography is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 or above, even though Flickr shows it all as CC-BY_SA-2.0, as Jkadavoor correctly noted. So I believe all is well. Please let me know if you have any other questions. Regards as ever :) Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Structured Data Bee, vol. 1, issue 1[edit]

Greetings, thank you for signing up for the Structured Data newsletter and its first edition. With this newsletter, the Structured data team plans on keeping you informed of technical progress, events, and communications to talk about the project, and continued information on how you can participate. This newsletter will be sent approximately every two weeks, and future editions will be translatable prior to publication. If you're new to Wikidata and want more information about how it works in relation to Wikimedia Commons, you can read an introduction to Wikidata for Commons being drafted.

Tech and design

  • The software development for this process is still in the planning phases. The idea is to have some functional prototyping done for experimentation and feedback by the end of the year.
  • The initial roadmap for development has been posted on Commons. The roadmap is a rough outline and is open to iterations as the team learns where and when to focus its energies.
  • There is a page set up for design ideas about what structured data could potentially look like.
  • There are forthcoming requests for comment about the particulars of technical architecture on mediawiki.org. Keep an eye on the Commons:Structured data/Get involved page for notification of when the RfCs are posted.

Events and chats

  • There was a week-long meeting between the Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team, the Wikidata team, and community members, held in Berlin, Germany, at the office of Wikimedia Deutchland on October 6-10. You can read an overview of the event in on this page on Commons. There are also plenty of pictures available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • If you would like to read more detail about what was discussed, there are etherpads of notes taken for each day of the event.
  • The second IRC office hour (logs) was held on October 16, and the first (logs) on September 3.

Getting involved

  • Sign up for this newsletter!
  • While working prototypes are being developed, there is a drive to make all files contain machine-readable data on Wikimedia projects.
  • A hub has been launched to facilitate communication and documentation for this work.
  • There is a frequently-asked questions page that is finishing drafting and will need translated. Keep an eye out for when it is ready if you are interested in translating.
  • There will be active organization of the Get involved page as community participation is further organized. There will be work groups, similar to specific Wikiprojects, dedicated to particular aspects of structured data like licensing presentation, design, API performance, and even helping out with this newsletter and other community communications.

There will be much more information and activities around the proposal to develop structured data on Wikimedia Commons. This project is a major undertaking and an important step as the chief provider, repository, and curator of media for Wikimedia projects.

Thank you for your participation in such an extensive project, let me know if you're interested in participating in this newsletter. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2014 (UTC

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Structured Data on Commons update[edit]

Greetings,

After a delay in updates to the Structured data on Commons project, I wanted to catch you up with what has been going on over the past three months. In short: The project is on hold, but that doesn't mean nothing is happening.

The meeting in Berlin in October provided the engineering teams with a lot to start on. Unfortunately the Structured Data on Commons project was put on hold not too long after this meeting. Development of the actual Structured data system for Commons will not begin until more resources can be allocated to it.

The Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Germany have been working to improve the Wikidata query process on the back-end. This is designed to be a production-grade replacement of WikidataQuery integrated with search. The full project is described at Mediawiki.org.This will benefit the structured data project greatly since developing a high-level search for Commons is a desired goal of this project.

The Wikidata development team is working on the arbitrary access feature. Currently it's only possible to access items that are connected to the current page. So for example on Vincent van Gogh you can access the statements on Q5582, but you can't access these statements on Category:Vincent van Gogh or Creator:Vincent van Gogh. With arbitrary access enabled on Commons we no longer have this limitation. This opens up the possibility to use Wikidata data on Creator, Institution, Authority control and other templates instead of duplicating the data (what we do now). This will greatly enhance the usefulness of Wikidata for Commons.

To use the full potential of arbitrary access the Commons community needs to reimplement several templates in LUA. In LUA it's possible to use the local fields and fallback to Wikidata if it's not locally available. Help with this conversion is greatly appreciated. The different tasks are tracked in phabricator, see https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89594 .

Volunteers are continuing to add data about artworks to Wikidata. Sometimes an institution website is used and sometimes data is being transfered from Commons to Wikidata. Wikidata now has almost 35.000 items about paintings. This is done as part of the WikiProject sum of all paintings. This helps us to learn how to d:Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structuremodel and refine metadata about artworks. Experience that will of course be very useful for Commons too.

Additionally, the metadata cleanup drive continues to produce results. The drive, which is intended to identify files missing {{information}} or the like structured data fields and to add such fields when absent, has reduced the number of files missing information by almost 100,000 on Commons. You can help by looking for files with similarly-formatted description pages, and listing them at Commons:Bots/Work requests so that a bot can add the {{information}} template on them.

At the Amsterdam Hackathon in November 2014, a couple of different models were developed about how artwork can be viewed on the web using structured data from Wikidata. You can browse two examples here and here. These examples can give you an idea of the kind of data that file pages have the potential to display on-wiki in the future.

The Structured Data project is a long-term one, and the volunteers and staff will continue working together to provide the structure and support in the back-end toward front-end development. There are still many things to do to help advance the project, and I hope to have more news for you in the near future. Contact me any time with questions, comments, concerns.

-- User:Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)