Commons talk:Help desk
| → Click here to post on Commons:Help desk ← This talk page is for discussing the page Commons:Help desk. |
|
2009–2016 • 2017–… Commons talk:Upload help |
Can we make it easier to designate someone else to add images for another person?[edit]
Not everyone is going to want to create a Wikimedia account in order to add images, but they may want or not mind someone else (like a grandchild, friend who is already active on Wikimedia platforms, or personal assistant) adding their images to Wikimedia. I know you can import through Flickr, but the same folks unlikely to want to create a Wikimedia account are unlikely to create a Flickr account as well. I know you can also email Wikimedia to give permissions about the image in question, but this is an extra step or email someone may have to write in addition to correspondence about permissions that may already exist. Could Wikimedia consider creating a reversible "designated uploader" option? Even creating an option to attach existing email correspondence between photographer and uploader would be helpful. Sonoet2 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- It would (technically) be easy to add a user right "designated uploader" (like "file mover", "admin", ...), but what would be the process to decide who gets this right. And there would rules be needed, what a designated uploader is allowed or not allowed to do. As of yet there are not enough users to do all the work. Who should handle this additional workload? C.Suthorn (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- The trouble is that this needs to be a "push" model rather than a "pull" model. I (the photographer) need to assign rights to another (the uploader with the Commons account). We can't just have random Commons accounts declaring themselves to be "the official upload gopher for Ansel Adams", unless Ansel Adams also agrees this.
- So at the very least, the photographer either needs an account here and makes a declaration through a user page, or they do something similar through COM:VRT. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- Echoing Andy Dingley here: they can make a designation like that through COM:VRT. I'm not sure how that gets handled for someone who isn't even comfortable with email, though. That might be a good question to ask at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, and it would probably be good for the answer to make its way into COM:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
- If someone doesn't want to create an account to upload their images, they can just follow the suggestions given in points 3 and 4 of COM:VRT#When contacting VRT is unnecessary, can't they? They can essentially make anyone in the world their "designated uploader" by simply publishing the image under an acceptable free license in some way that can be verified by Commons. For example, they can create a Flickr account and release all their images under an acceptable license. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: but that still doesn't deal with, for example, the 94-year-old who simply doesn't use computers. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't it possible for such a 94-year-old to ask someone to create a social media account on their behalf, given that person the photos and tell them to upload them under a free license? A "designated uploader" doesn't need to be for Commons only, does it? If they're capable of asking someone to upload their photos to Commons, they're probably also capable of asking family member or friend to post the photos somewhere else online and add the appropriate licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: probably, but then we'd end up with the question of whether that social media account was sufficiently under their control for the offers of licenses there to be relied upon. I'm guessing VRT has a way to accept a snail-mail letter designating someone to handle someone's uploads, but I don't see that stated anywhere. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- There're always going to be concerns about who controls an account, but Commons does seem to assume good faith when it comes to things like Flickr unless there's a reason (obvious COM:LL) to think otherwise. As for snail mail, I'll ask about that at VRTN, but that seems highly unlikely. With a central email account, it's possible to grant multiple persons easy access; on the other hand, with a central mailing address or PO box, there would be a limited number of persons (maybe only just one) who could access it. I guess such correspondance could be sent to some WMF mailing address, but then it would still need to entered into the system for VRT volunteers to assess which means someone at the WMF would need to be directly involved. Maybe such a set up could be created if it doesn't already exist, but I'm not sure there would really be enough of a demand for it to be cost-effective, especially moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the concern but how often do we have a situation where there is a 94-year-old who doesn't use computers but wants their media uploaded to Commons specifically? I get that it is a designee who probably wants it but at some point "my grandma owns the copyright and somehow knows of this project but she doesn't use email, doesn't want to respond via phone, doesn't want to write a letter, doesn't want to do anything to prove it" becomes very close to people just making it all up. We have few enough Wikimedians in Residence that can help institutions do uploads properly but I think that's the best way mechanically to think of this problem, and that requires a lot more disclosure of the identity of the designee than usual. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: I've uploaded a good number of photos by my father, who would be that age if he were alive. As it happens, he died at 71, and I'm the heir to his intellectual property, so it's simple. And he could have handled this just fine, he was doing Telex back in the 1960s, so email made sense to him. But I've seen with other members of his generation of the family -- bright people, professionals -- that some of them have trouble even using Facebook, or corresponding by email. There are a lot of people of that generation who own intellectual property that we'd want to have on Commons if we could arrange it. It's not so much a matter of them specifically wanting the content on Commons, it's them having content Commons wants. We have a lot of gaps for the mid-20th-century: new enough that it's not in the public domain, old enough that few of our active members took photos at that time. I'm probably one of the oldest 10% here, and my earliest photos here are from the 1960s, and I didn't really start doing photography systematically until the 1990s. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- As I said, it's the designee that wants it but there is really going to be no way for people to prove that they are the heir to personal property easily. I mean, in the end, it will come down to "I swear I'm the heir" which I don't know how VRT would ever prove it. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Note that we have templates for licenses by heirs, eg {{PD-heirs}}, {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} etc. I've uploaded a number of inherited photos from deceased family - personally I've generally credited them to "Family photos of Infrogmation", but if you want to include their given names, or however you think author credit is best. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- There are certainly people even these days who either have difficulty or have no desire to use email or the Internet for anything. For many who grew up prior to Internet age, trying to en:keep up with the Joneses has probably be quite a struggle, not only from a technical standpoint but perhaps also from a psychological standpoint. Many little kids are already way more savy when it comes to such things than their grandparents could ever hope to be. For sure, lots of people probably would prefer that they could still do things the way the once were able to, but it's always been like that with respect to any type of change, hasn't it? If VRT doesn't already have a system in place for receiving snail-mail, then I think one is really unlikely to be created unless there's really a very strong demand for it. If VRT does already have such a system in place, then there have probably been discussions about eventually phasing it out. I wouldn't be too surprised if, in my lifetime, written correspondence becomes even more of an exception to the rule than it currently seems to be as newer and newer technologies continue to be introduced. That appears to be the general direction that society is heading as it moves into the future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ricky81682: I've uploaded a good number of photos by my father, who would be that age if he were alive. As it happens, he died at 71, and I'm the heir to his intellectual property, so it's simple. And he could have handled this just fine, he was doing Telex back in the 1960s, so email made sense to him. But I've seen with other members of his generation of the family -- bright people, professionals -- that some of them have trouble even using Facebook, or corresponding by email. There are a lot of people of that generation who own intellectual property that we'd want to have on Commons if we could arrange it. It's not so much a matter of them specifically wanting the content on Commons, it's them having content Commons wants. We have a lot of gaps for the mid-20th-century: new enough that it's not in the public domain, old enough that few of our active members took photos at that time. I'm probably one of the oldest 10% here, and my earliest photos here are from the 1960s, and I didn't really start doing photography systematically until the 1990s. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- I understand the concern but how often do we have a situation where there is a 94-year-old who doesn't use computers but wants their media uploaded to Commons specifically? I get that it is a designee who probably wants it but at some point "my grandma owns the copyright and somehow knows of this project but she doesn't use email, doesn't want to respond via phone, doesn't want to write a letter, doesn't want to do anything to prove it" becomes very close to people just making it all up. We have few enough Wikimedians in Residence that can help institutions do uploads properly but I think that's the best way mechanically to think of this problem, and that requires a lot more disclosure of the identity of the designee than usual. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- There're always going to be concerns about who controls an account, but Commons does seem to assume good faith when it comes to things like Flickr unless there's a reason (obvious COM:LL) to think otherwise. As for snail mail, I'll ask about that at VRTN, but that seems highly unlikely. With a central email account, it's possible to grant multiple persons easy access; on the other hand, with a central mailing address or PO box, there would be a limited number of persons (maybe only just one) who could access it. I guess such correspondance could be sent to some WMF mailing address, but then it would still need to entered into the system for VRT volunteers to assess which means someone at the WMF would need to be directly involved. Maybe such a set up could be created if it doesn't already exist, but I'm not sure there would really be enough of a demand for it to be cost-effective, especially moving forward. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: probably, but then we'd end up with the question of whether that social media account was sufficiently under their control for the offers of licenses there to be relied upon. I'm guessing VRT has a way to accept a snail-mail letter designating someone to handle someone's uploads, but I don't see that stated anywhere. - Jmabel ! talk 22:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't it possible for such a 94-year-old to ask someone to create a social media account on their behalf, given that person the photos and tell them to upload them under a free license? A "designated uploader" doesn't need to be for Commons only, does it? If they're capable of asking someone to upload their photos to Commons, they're probably also capable of asking family member or friend to post the photos somewhere else online and add the appropriate licensing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Marchjuly: but that still doesn't deal with, for example, the 94-year-old who simply doesn't use computers. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
People. Please be extremely clear about two things: Wikipedia is difficult. In terms of Commons, this means: if I'm not one of those ultra-nerds, then the easiest thing in the world is to post all the possible images I have that Wikipedia absolutely needs on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Mastodon, PixelFed or wherever. From thought to finished execution is less than a minute, then I can forget about it and never have to deal with it again. To contribute just one image to Wikipedia, on the other hand, I have to overcome insurmountable hurdles: Create an account, making my username public and coming up with a password. Reading and understanding thousands of pages about copyright and then realising I didn't understand it. Then filling out a monstrous upload form that doesn't exist on SocialMedia. I have to remember what date the picture is from, what the source is, who created it, what licence I choose, what categories (what is that? something like tags?) Then a caption and a description, the GPS coordinates and a free text field for unspecified more. Then the upload might not work and I have to start all over again. If it is successful, I get neither likes nor favs, and my work is not retweeted or boosted. Either nothing happens or I get a deletion request. And then I'm supposed to take care of "my" picture for the rest of my life, but I'm not allowed to delete it either, because it's not "my" picture, it belongs to the world (irrevocable licence). And the second: Wikipedia is not popular. There are billions of people who are willing to donate an image to Wikipedia ("here, I'll forward it to you, feel free to use it on Wikipedia!"), but who - even if hell freezes over or they are the last person on earth - are under no circumstances willing to create a Wikipedia account, jump over the strange sticks Wikipedia throws in their face or comply with VRT's demands. If there were Wikipedians entrusted with this, who wore a uniform, could be approached on the street and had the technical equipment with them to directly accept an image (via mail, messenger, USB, Bluetooth, NFC or by photographing it), then Commons could harvest real treasures of necessary images. But with the idea that the image donors have to become active themselves, this will never work. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There may come a day perhaps not to far into the future where there are Wikipedia Stores or Wikipedia Kiosks which function in some way like what you've described above; however, there would still need to be some understanding of what it means to "donate an image" by those wanting their images uploaded for use on some Wikipedia since they still would essentially be giving a great deal of control over their image (assuming its even their image to begin with). Moreover, there's really no way to guarantee their image will even be used since contextual decisions regarding image use tend to rest entirely in the hands of each local Wikipedia community. For sure, some rare or high quality images might be obtained in such a way, but probably quite a few would never end up ever being used (at least not in the way the copyright holder originally hoped), but instead could possibly end up used in ways completely unrelated to Wikipedia by other third-parties. So, while it's true that Commons makes uploaders jump through lots of hoops, not all of those hoops are of Commons making. Some of them are due to the varous copyright laws around the world, aren't they? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Daily we received lots of emails in VRT of permissions from copyright holders (CRH) for files uploaded by a user who is not him. This is not a problem at all. Also, in the photosubmission queue, frequently people send files to by uploaded and we do it (I do it, at least). Aditionally, we receive printed, signed and scanned permissions in pdf or jpg send in representation of the CRH, because he's too old, he's got connectivity problems or other causes. So, to create an account it's not mandatory neither to be a tech geek. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The people discussing here did not know, that it is possible to mail in a printed document. IMHO there should be a permanent ad on the main page of all language wikipedias telling people that they can send in notable works to a surface address for inclusion in commons. C.Suthorn (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Good old snailmail. Print a Commons release form, fill in the blanks, sign, put it in an envelope with the prints or slides or negatives or whatever, write the address, stamp, and drop in the mailbox. For us it seems a hassle but we're talking about people for whom inventing a password and typing it twice the same way is a hassle. Me, I'm in my 70s but that includes 65 years as a hardcore technerd. Most my age are the other way. And some have spent those 65 years as an amateur photographer. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- I asked about this at COM:VRTN#Discussion at Commons talk:Help desk#Can we make it easier to designate someone else to add images for another person? and the last response received made it quite clear that VRT only deals with emails. Instituting a snail mail system for this kind of thing is beyond the scope of this Help Desk, and probably would need to be something that the WMF itself would need to do. If some believe this is something that really should be done, then perhaps the best way to try and get the ball rolling would be to post a proposal at COM:VPP since that's the best place to discuss a project-wide matter such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's no difference to accept old photos in paper as well. If the person ask someone to upload the file in his name, why can't use the same person to send a photo or scanned file of the statement by email? It has no sense to me. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ganimedes: I have a question in at Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team asking pretty much that. COM:VRT says that email should come from the copyright-holder, but it seems reasonable to me that the copyright-holder can put something in writing, and someone else can email it. After all, we accept exactly the equivalent when there is a transfer of copyright, and the new copyright-holder sends a copy of a document signed by the prior copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not a VRT member, but my understanding (based on some discussions I've had with VRT members about something similar) has always been that VRT doesn't typically accept forwarded permission emails. It used to be OK way back in the day for permission statements to actually be posted on file pages per COM:GRANDFATHER, but this was discontinued once OTRS (as VRT was called back then) was established. VRT members seem to be reluctant to accept anything that might possibly manipulated, which is understandable, but there are subjective mini-assessments made when determing such a thing that vary from VRT member to VRT member. Perhaps input from other VRT members is sought (I think there's a VRT chat they use) in such cases to see what others might think. Scans of notarized copyright transfer agreements or "consent" agreements might be accepted when considered reliable, but again I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm VRT agent and, as I already explain, I've accepted statements manually signed, that have been sent by email by a third person as pdf, jpg or png. I don't think it's the same case as a forwarded email: as you've said, the risk of manipulation it's different in both cases. --Ganímedes (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you Ganímedes and my apologies if it seemed as if I was contesting something you posted earlier. Maybe any further discussion on this should be moved to Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team. Jmabel has already started a discussion about this there and that page seems more likely to be on the watchlists of VRT members than this one is. Moving the discussion there may also help avoid confusion and redundancy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- That would be Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team. There is no Commons talk:VRT. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that. I've corrected the link accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think a more accurate place is Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard, but there is a threath about this already there. --Ganímedes (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for catching that. I've corrected the link accordingly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm VRT agent and, as I already explain, I've accepted statements manually signed, that have been sent by email by a third person as pdf, jpg or png. I don't think it's the same case as a forwarded email: as you've said, the risk of manipulation it's different in both cases. --Ganímedes (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not a VRT member, but my understanding (based on some discussions I've had with VRT members about something similar) has always been that VRT doesn't typically accept forwarded permission emails. It used to be OK way back in the day for permission statements to actually be posted on file pages per COM:GRANDFATHER, but this was discontinued once OTRS (as VRT was called back then) was established. VRT members seem to be reluctant to accept anything that might possibly manipulated, which is understandable, but there are subjective mini-assessments made when determing such a thing that vary from VRT member to VRT member. Perhaps input from other VRT members is sought (I think there's a VRT chat they use) in such cases to see what others might think. Scans of notarized copyright transfer agreements or "consent" agreements might be accepted when considered reliable, but again I'm not sure. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Ganimedes: I have a question in at Commons talk:Volunteer Response Team asking pretty much that. COM:VRT says that email should come from the copyright-holder, but it seems reasonable to me that the copyright-holder can put something in writing, and someone else can email it. After all, we accept exactly the equivalent when there is a transfer of copyright, and the new copyright-holder sends a copy of a document signed by the prior copyright-holder. - Jmabel ! talk 02:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- There's no difference to accept old photos in paper as well. If the person ask someone to upload the file in his name, why can't use the same person to send a photo or scanned file of the statement by email? It has no sense to me. --Ganímedes (talk) 01:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
- I asked about this at COM:VRTN#Discussion at Commons talk:Help desk#Can we make it easier to designate someone else to add images for another person? and the last response received made it quite clear that VRT only deals with emails. Instituting a snail mail system for this kind of thing is beyond the scope of this Help Desk, and probably would need to be something that the WMF itself would need to do. If some believe this is something that really should be done, then perhaps the best way to try and get the ball rolling would be to post a proposal at COM:VPP since that's the best place to discuss a project-wide matter such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- The people discussing here did not know, that it is possible to mail in a printed document. IMHO there should be a permanent ad on the main page of all language wikipedias telling people that they can send in notable works to a surface address for inclusion in commons. C.Suthorn (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
- Daily we received lots of emails in VRT of permissions from copyright holders (CRH) for files uploaded by a user who is not him. This is not a problem at all. Also, in the photosubmission queue, frequently people send files to by uploaded and we do it (I do it, at least). Aditionally, we receive printed, signed and scanned permissions in pdf or jpg send in representation of the CRH, because he's too old, he's got connectivity problems or other causes. So, to create an account it's not mandatory neither to be a tech geek. --Ganímedes (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
السلام عليكم[edit]
لقد قمت بإنشاء مقالة أنمي في ويكيبيديا واضفت صورة ولكن تم حذفها ارجو مساعدتي في إستعادتها عمار أبكر (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
- I presume this is about File:بي باتل بيرست تيربو.jpg, deleted as non-free derivative work of https://m.facebook.com/105938691171658/posts/137080934724100/; I'd guess that is itself non-free derivative work of something else. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Massive deletion of history[edit]
I'm not at all sure what User:Cybularny was suppressing here, but removing days of history makes it almost impossible for anyone to follow activity on this page and see what has happened since they last visited. Unless this was something awfully egregious, this seems disproportionate. Usually it's not that bad to have some stupid stuff in the history, compared to making the history unusable. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel That was one revision being hidden, and this is the admin-only diff: [1]. Looks reasonable to me... —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I see, there was an unrelated suppression/oversight. We can't see suppression logs, but it looks like User:Raymond suppressed it. Raymond, can you please give us an idea of the kind of information which was suppressed (e.g. whether it was an email, IP, etc.); this seems excessive for an ordinary email address? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757 Sure. The oversighted revisions contain very personal and detailed information, far more than an email address only. And not related to Wikimedia Commons/Wikipedia. I had to suppress a lot of revisions because the text were present until I removed it today. Feel free to ask for a review of my action on the Oversight mailing list. Raymond (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- Oh I see, there was an unrelated suppression/oversight. We can't see suppression logs, but it looks like User:Raymond suppressed it. Raymond, can you please give us an idea of the kind of information which was suppressed (e.g. whether it was an email, IP, etc.); this seems excessive for an ordinary email address? —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Mdaniels5757: I see. Yes, what you did was entirely reasonable. Sorry for not having been able to work out which action clobbered so much content. - Jmabel ! talk 18:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Upload[edit]
can anyone help me on how to upload because it's difficult for me.
I need a tutor who can instruct me step by step until I have uploaded my first work.
I would love if anyone's who can come to my user page so we can talk easy. Piet Tumelo Nzimande (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- Have you been to Special:UploadWizard? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Piet Tumelo Nzimande: are you trying to upload a photo you took, or a photo someone else took? Is it part of a contest, or just a normal upload? (and, yes, as Koavf asked, have you tried Special:UploadWizard?) - Jmabel ! talk 14:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)]