User talk:Wiki CRUK John

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Wiki CRUK John!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Attribution[edit]

I noticed that your preferred attribution is "Cancer Research UK / Wikimedia Commons". Did you consider requesting a link back to the organization's website? Did you consider posting the organization's logo anywhere on the file page? You took a minimalist approach which is less than what some others have chosen, and if that was your intent, then fine. I thought I would ask because in the spectrum of options I have not before seen such an important media collection presented so modestly and with so little emphasis on the attribution request. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes and yes, I think. CRUK is not a hard organization to find on the web, though maybe we should link the name at that point. Not using the logo was deliberate; CRUK has a large brand department who essentially prefer not to have the logo, representing the brand, used in places and ways they don't control. This attitude would I think be more typical of large consumer-facing businesses than the sort of institutions who typically release on Commons. I'm rather puzzled by your last point, because looking at other large institutional releases, typically by GLAMs, I'm not used to seeing any specification of an attribution request at all - random examples here, here and here - though this is US PD, which is different. Logos are more typically absent than present also. I'm not sure what sort of releases you are thinking of. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
In the three examples you gave, logos are used in all cases. In the first example you gave, a link back is requested, contrary to what you said. In the PLOS example, that was uploaded by someone unaffiliated with PLOS. I am happy that you found that one because I helped to curate it.
Large-consumer facing businesses may want to show their brand off, but anyone who thinks they would get brand recognition from a Wikimedia Commons file page misunderstands what happens here because I cannot imagine how that could be useful advertising. The brand recognition is useful to me as a Wikipedian because it confirms the release of copyright to me, which was my original concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't really confirm anything. One can in fact pick up the CRUK logo from the web (DesignWeek magazine for example). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of statement[edit]

Can I remove this text from your category page?

  • Please do not add files to or remove them from this category. Check total, 4 August 2014, 392 files (2 duplicates)

Does it serve any purpose? When I saw this tag, I imagined that it confirmed a copyright release of all the items in the category. However, it seems that all items covered have this tag on their individual files. I was puzzled to imagine that this text was some kind of verification feature, when in fact I think it is just historical documentation of the sort that usually goes on a talk page.

I am asking because I want to understand how you separate released content from content nonreleased content which someone may upload. This tag has no relation to that process, right? It serves no purpose at all, and is obsoleted, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

No. That category is only intended for officially released images, as it says. It is far from the only one of that sort. The main CRUK category is for other images. Frankly I think you are imagining problems where none exist, although I agree the Commons procedures are from from optimal. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Tell me if you do not want to keep discussing this.
There is an OTRS tag on that page which covers the release of some content. At the time it was added, the page said that 392 files were supposed to be in the category. Now more files are there. OTRS permission, as I understand, is not a perpetual blanket release for content, and each copyrighted file needs to be connected to an OTRS declaration. Which 392 files are covered by that release, and what is covering the release of the other files in the category?
If the OTRS release is a perpetual permission statement for all future file sharing, then why keep the order not to add or remove files beyond the 392 count, when obviously additional uploading has been done? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The note says: "These images have been released as part of an open knowledge project by Cancer Research UK. If re-used, attribute to Cancer Research UK / Wikimedia Commons. Please do not add files to or remove them from this category." That applies to everyone except User:Cancer Research UK uploader, but not to people using that official upload account. Obviously the check total needs upldating, but we are supposed to be in the middle of another bout of uploading. Aren't we making very heavy weather of this? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
If you are being defensive there is no need to be. I have no comment on how you are doing things, but I am curious about best practices. I know you worked a bit with Fae and I know also that CRUK wants to be professional, so I assumed that whatever decisions you made were the most thoughtful that you could imagine and might be worth copying by others. You seemed upset that I did not message you when I was discussing this with others during the controversy about how organizations should upload files, and now that I am messaging you you seem to regret being included.
I only ask because it is not easy for me to follow what you did or why. It seemed to me that you choose to do some parts of this in ways that had never been done before. If you have interest in talking about documenting best practices in upload then I might ask more. If that is not a deep interest for you then you are like most people, and there is no need for you to participate in conversations on this topic. It probably is not a good use of your time as a CRUK representative as this will not be sorted out while you are there, if you are leaving soon.
I was looking at the CC-licenses and had not realized that Creative Commons made changes recently, and the attribution issue is one of the things being addressed. I raised this at Commons:Village_pump#Is_attribution_required_for_CC-By_licensed_content_which_does_not_request_attribution.3F and am following the discussion on the linked copyright page to make a recommendation for change. I agree with you that attribution recommendations are not clear, and I would like to recommend best practices for institutions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm keen to ensure that CRUK are doing things in a correct way, that works, and that I & others can use again, something that I was confident was the case until you raised a number of possible issues. I'm not sure if these really are issues. The CRUK permission is not limited to a particular set of images. Does this in fact represent a problem in terms of the OTRS system? I hope you have already taken away from this that a) there's no question that ORGs can specify the form of attribution, and b) that they should generally say what that is more clearly on file pages etc. This should remove some of your uncertainties you have mentioned (on WP) in terms of what to say to institutions. There are obvious (I hope) advantages in having categories that include only "official" releases by an ORG, like the CRUK and maybe the Walters ones. It would be nice if the system could allow this, with some form of protected category, to sit under general categories. The current CRUK set-up was worked out with Fae, though in fact not discussed with other WiRs etc, & afaik still works. But it would be nice to be sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I confirm that what you have done seems correct in every way that I know and does not seem incorrect in any way that I know. I am only unsure if it is optimal, and even I am unsure what optimal means.
Yes, organizations should be able to specify the manner or attribution, and as you say, the infrastructure here does not make it easy for anyone to do this as evidenced by how most uploaders fail to specify anything.
Yes, there are obvious advantages for having an "official" category. As you say, there is no way to protect such categories, so the obvious disadvantage is that anyone can change them. When the count in your category went up, my first thought was that someone other than CRUK had added unwanted items to it. As you know, if this happens, it would be very difficult to detect.
Increasingly more organizations want to share media. I was looking at your page in the context of a real problem. In Category:Media_owned_by_simpleshow, users outside this organization uploaded their CC-licensed content. However, this organization has lots of non-CC content which they do not want on Wikimedia projects, and they would like a way to review that all of the files on Wikipedia are files that they want to share. Difficulties with this include the following: multiple users uploaded the files, different users applied different licenses due to not understanding the upload process, there is a continued threat that non-CC files will be mixed with this, and the organization would like to standardize its attribution practices. I expect that as I say these things, you can think of 10 complicated differences and implications between this situation and yours, and yet seemingly a common solution could be that protected category system you imagined but which does not exist. I have doubts that the "hands off please" category that you made would work for an organization in a field that could not depend on highly proficient Wikipedians watching the system, and in the case of simpleshow, all kinds of people uploaded and used their content without even telling them. I do not feel that I can trust the honor system you have in place for your project with this project, and I was wondering what I can trust. I am not sure.
You said that templates and logos do not matter, but in my opinion, the barrier to using these is great enough so as to make it unlikely that most people would replicate them. I hate to use security through obscurity, but I hardly know what else to do, and in that case I can follow "what links here" lists rather than make a private category and ask people to not touch it. I am not sure what to do. What you did, I think, works fine for what you did. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
One can exercise some control via a log and check totals, which I started, on the category talk and on paper, but have not updated. In practice only 2 people are currently using the upload a/c (me+1), for distinct types of images, & not for huge quantities, but it does get tricky. I can see that might not work for other ORGs. I don't know if it is possible to protect categories like articles - that might actually be a solution. Or to have a tool that is a category log/history, so you can easily see who has added what and when - that would seem achievable, and would make things much easier. But these are not my native waters, as you know. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Note to self[edit]

File talk:Diagram showing the area to be removed for pylorus preserving pancreaticduodenectomy CRUK 291.svg Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)