Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Commons in-person discussion at the Wikimedia Conference
|name of group||Wikimedia Commons and reusers|
|Location type (e.g. local wiki, Facebook, in-person discussion, telephone conference)||Fringe session in person|
The summary is a group of summary sentences and associated keywords that describe the relevant topic(s). Below is an example.
The first column (after the line number) should be a single sentence. The second column should be a comma-separated list of keywords about that sentence, and so on. Taken together, all the sentences should provide an accurate summary of what was discussed with the specific community.
Summary for the discussion:
If you need more lines, you can copy them from Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Lines.
Detailed notes (Optional)
Cut and paste, to be parsed into the format at the bottom of the page. Notes from the fringe meeting, 31 March 2017: [[User:Fæ|Fæ]] ([[User talk:Fæ|talk]]) 08:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) Introduction points * Commons is the only Wikimedia project that is a direct dependency for all other projects. Though local file uploads are possible on many projects, but not consistently. * The media collection has grown exponentially, going over 1 million files in 2006 and currently standing at over 37 million. A greater proportion of uploads over time are large mass uploads rather than individual contributions. * There are approximately 130 active administrators for over 6 million registered users. The standard measure of active users is 33,000, with 1,400 currently active and with over 10,000 edits. * The most common reason for deleting files is copyright violations. * Non-open file standards are not accepted, such as JPEG2000 and divx. Session notes are draft, needing to be processed... There seem to be three different purposes for Wikimedia Commons: - a filearchive - a community - a filerepository Could we change the software? For example could we have separate control for archives? A future goal is to be a better environment where people can participate and communicate, for example better multilanguage support. From the newbie perspective, notability is absent, which is confusing as a potential conflict in purpose when going between projects. This should have easier up front explanation. Clustering files by theme or content or formats, beyond categories, would be very useful. Commons is no longer just a central repository, though this was its starting design, with the majority of the files never likely to be used by the other projects. Better curation relationship between other projects and commons - there is an added value for the curation i.e. tracking versions, crops etc. - perhaps merge file management for all wikis, so local hosting becomes a view of Commons. We need to offer reliability of the continuity of files, the future commons needs a more collegiate process for deletion notification and collection reporting. Moving to structured data helps to ensure consistency and monitoring reports. A major goal ... anyone can comment in any language. The challenge is to reduce barriers, conceptual and technical, between commons and other projects, a more seamless approach. For example differences in mission is itself a barrier. Content donors want to be secure and their collection managed - expect the donations to retain their text - tracking back to the archive original version - a reliable partner in cooperation - reporting back - perhaps working together with a long term archive partner In 15 years we want commons to be a trusted and reliable partner for content donations setting and meeting expectations a vibrant platform for enriching content participating in curation has a high threshold Media remix should be part of the platform. Recap main themes: *Relationship with different wikimedia communities should be smooth and predictable *Reliable and predictable partner for external collaboration *Making it easier for people to contribute *More than just a picture, movies 3D etc. need to be in practical scope, catch up with the internet standard *A more structured way of finding media *Create relationships with reusers, such as embeders of images. other projects have a clear external user, this is far less clear for commons. these notes to go to meta and the commons vp