From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Sorry, proposed project looks as duplication of Commons for me. I don't see a reason why restoration project can't exists as part of Commons.
Some topics for discussion:
  • I don't see how separate wiki will solve technical TIFF problem. With same logic Wikimedia should create separate wiki for featured photos because sometimes RAW format exchanges are necessary.
  • Size problem could be resolved with creation of custom group on Commons with right to upload bigger files.
  • What is licensing policy for proposed project? Will it be limited to public domain in US/country of origin and free licenses?
  • Should Wikimedia create wikis as places open to everyone who has demonstrated his interest in the working with geocoding/quality files/featured files/Tree of Life files/Bundesarchiv files/any other Commons project?
EugeneZelenko 04:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions, Eugene. Actually my first suggestion was to create a 'large file uploader' op for Commons, to be toggled for contributors who had a track record of serious work and a need to use it. As a practical endeavor, that would require more developer time than is really available. Meanwhile there's a growing backlog of restorations whose uncompressed versions cannot be uploaded to any WMF project at all, which seriously limits the expansion of the pool of people who do this work and prevents any wiki-style collaboration at all on the best material. Consider the transfer time for a single 150MB file: unless some venue is created soon, a growing number of these files may never get uploaded. Eventually, if the developers create the commons op we would both like to see, the two projects may merge. We're willing to be flexible about licensing options. The most important thing here is to generate a repository--some practial option. Currently on my system is a half-finished restoration of the original Santa Fe Trail: a manuscript from one of the survey officers commissioned by President Monroe in the 1820s. It's 186MB. The fundamentals of a wiki environment is that somebody else ought to be able to improve on what the first editor does with it. We don't have that fundamental in place, and this type of material is too important to continue doing without it. Durova 06:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Stupid question, if a tiff can be uploaded to some separate domain, why can't it be uploaded to commons (size issues aside). mediawiki doesn't necessarily need to render it. To my knowledge, commons accepts xcf for having source files, how is tiff any different? Bawolff 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between a technical reason why we CANNOT and why do not WANT to upload tiff files. It appears that tiff is a container format and it is theoretically possible to hide nasty stuff. This is why Commons will not be hosting tiff files until a "validator" is written. The need for restorers is to specific, so by allowing only people to be part of this community that restore images, the threat level is completely different. GerardM 07:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also mw:WMDE_contract_offers/Implement_full_support_for_TIFF_files. --Nemo 06:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few questions[edit]

I'm unclear how it is that the technical issues Commons (and our other wikis) have can be solved for this project but not for Commons. For example, Durova cites a lack of sysadmin time (which is a very real problem), but neglects to address that creating a project requires more time than, say setting up a new user group which was mentioned by Durova as an alternative.

Equally, the issues with uploading via http remain regardless of the size of the project.

Thanks for clarification,  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that 17957 Infrastructure for image/video file uploads by FTP was just WONTFIXed - a decision which I disagree with strenuously. It seems to me that that is a very good option for uploading very large non-video files (note that Michael Dale cited 16927 add support for firefogg as the better implementation, which of course fails to address non-ogg uploads). You know what? That's not OK - I'm reopening that bug now. I'd suggest interested folks should CC themselves to monitor progress and technical discussion.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem is that it is in our interest not too wait untill all the technical bits are all resolved. When Commons was created, there was no software to share images. That only happened many months later. By having a WMF repository we can make it work as best we can. Solutions can be written that do not scale from the start but are useful for an isolated wiki. When the required functionality exists in the proper quality, we may merge back into Commons. Thanks, GerardM 11:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is going to write those solutions?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki name[edit]

The title suggested is a url. What about the wiki's actual name? RestorationWiki? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi, this project will be first and foremost a repository. We are expanding our visibility at Commons because this remains the place where our work will be most visible and from where it will be used.. To be honest, we have not thought of it really as a separate project; it is very much a necessary evil. Thanks, GerardM 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have not explained why it is necessary.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment we have a hard time carving out a niche at Commons. Technically Commons has improved by supporting .tiff files. It is also wonderful that the German Verein has posted a job for supporting tiff files more completely. Problematic is that we cannot upload the full sized originals and restorations. Commons has still very much a community that is focused on digital photography. This is not helped by the fact that we cannot practice several of what some of us consider best practices. Formulating these best practices is also not opportune because of this and this does not go down well by some. Thanks, GerardM 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you really want is something other than upload by HTTP. Starting a new wiki doesn't solve that problem.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A project that is only about technology is a bit sad. Technology is an enabler and as such can make and does make a big difference. This difference is to grow a community of people who digitally restore historic illustrations, a community that help us with quality historic material, a community that help make the WMF credible as a partner for libraries, museums and archives. As it is, Commons provides much of what we need but it is not all there yet. Thanks, GerardM 21:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm afraid you've not pointed out anything else that you need beyond a way to upload which isn't restricted the way HTTP uploads are. Clarity on what else is needed would help you get it.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]