Commons talk:Structured data/Get involved/Community focus group

Welcome! :-)

A warm hello to everyone who signed up for this focus group, and to everyone who watches this talk page in general. Thank you for your interest and involvement. My own first suggestion would be to use this talk page to discuss specific questions, issues and topics. This project now also has a dedicated IRC channel, #wikimedia-commons-sd ^webchat. I'm very open to other suggestions on how we can work together in the most convenient way! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

IRC office hour format preferences?

We are planning a new IRC office hour about Structured Commons, Tuesday 21 November at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^webchat. What are your preferences on how to do this?

1. The 'classic' IRC office hour, IRC text chat only, like Wikidata does it. IRC chat log is publicly archived afterwards.
2. Or the more 'visual' office hour, which takes place on Google Hangouts (recorded and uploaded to Commons afterwards) + IRC text chat as a parallel channel (chat log also publicly archived afterwards). Here, we can demonstrate more things live / in a visual way.

Both are good for me. I'd love to hear what everyone prefers! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No preference; will be asleep. (I have never attended a WMF office hour.) Jc86035 (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The chat log (and/or video) is available afterwards. For example, in my volunteer time I often read the IRC log of the Wikidata office hour afterwards when I couldn't attend it live; it's usually a nice summary of what has recently happened in the project. SandraF (WMF) (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Updates to info/documentation pages about this project

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T173820

The documentation and info pages about Structured Data on Commons have received a thorough (and much overdue) update this week, in order to get them ready for all the upcoming work. Obsolete pages were archived. There are undoubtedly still a lot of omissions and bits that are unclear. You can help by editing boldly, and by leaving feedback and tips on the talk pages. Info that I still want to add/improve is:

• Images - illustrations, screenshots...
• User groups, user stories - this is on its way!
• I want to improve the Development page a lot. Are there any development info/feedback/discussion pages of other projects that you particularly like?

Thanks! :-) SandraF (WMF) (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

How do we feel about a project logo?

A while ago, Micru, Jheald and Perhelion have created logo variations that could be used for the Structured Commons project. I boldly selected one for the navbox that you'll find at the bottom of this project's info pages, but that can totally be changed.

• 
  1 - by Jheald
• 
  2 - by Micru
• 
  3 - by Perhelion

What does everyone think? Do you prefer any of the designs shown above? Do we want to hold a small logo contest? (I can support organizing a logo contest, and I've also heard that the WMF designers involved in Structured Commons are willing to help convert a chosen logo to svg). Curious to hear your opinion! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support for Nr. 2. -- Michael F. Schönitzer 14:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support for Nr. 2. I also like that one the best --Jarekt (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

They are all great, but I like #2 the most as well. May I ask what the meaning of the original Commons logo is? —MisterSynergy (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

My interpretation of the original Commons logo is that it symbolizes multiple wikimedia projects utilizing the came common set of media resources. --Jarekt (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No 2 closely followed by no 1. But I don't like no 3 that much. --MB-one (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Prefer №2, oppose №3. Jc86035 (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support for 2 as well. - PKM (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Support for 2 as well. ChristianKl (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

 Comment The first two logos were originally created for WikiProjects that directly sought to make Commons and Wikidata work together. But I am not sure that such a strong emphasis on Wikidata is necessarily appropriate for the structured data project. Wikidata can divide people; in particular, Structured Data is not a Wikidata "take over" of Commons; and in any case, much of the structured data will not be stored on Wikidata. So I would suggest a logo which does not explicitly reference Wikidata in this way.

Instead, I am rather taken with the idea of the Structured Data bee. I would suggest putting the Structured Data Bee in the middle of the Commons logo, with the arrows reversed, so that the Bee is feeding Commons, which in turn is feeding the world. Jheald (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Support for tool developers

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T173971

I have initiated a (still very rough) page and Phabricator task to keep track of support for all important Commons tools - and tool developers - that will be affected by Structured Commons. Amanda and I already chatted with several developers at Wikimania, and we'll gradually start tracking each tool individually and organizing input and help, to make the transition to the new situation as smooth as possible. I also think about suggesting this (updating Commons tools to work with structured data) as a focus in upcoming hackathons.

I was wondering if some of you (developers mainly) would be interested in volunteering to help other tool builders and maintainers? Feel free to sign up if you want to do that.

Comments and feedback very welcome. Thanks! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright license for data stored in Structured data on Commons

This issue was raised before by Fae, but early on we need to decide what will be the license of for content stored in Structured data on Commons. Commons community has large numbers of self-tough, amateur copyright experts (including me), and we are often hyper aware of the copyright issues. Descriptions on Commons are distributed under {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} license, as is the content of Wikipedias. Content of Wikidata is distributed under {{CC0}} license. Transfer of data from Wikipedias to Wikidata is allowed, I assume, based on assumption that the the facts are {{PD-ineligible}}. That would be true for most of the data Structured data stores as well, except for the description field. So we will have to either

1. keep Structured data under {{CC0}} license (and not store lengthy descriptions in it),
2. keep it under {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} and make interface with wikidata more complicated and data less usable
3. keep it under {{CC-BY-SA-3.0}} for text fields and {{CC0}} for the rest.

This is something that should be reviewed by WMF legal and might have an impact on technical solutions we will choose. --Jarekt (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think the problem is restricted to just the description field (although that is the most obvious issue). Something else to consider is that Commons, by policy, honors the copyright law of both the US and the source country. While facts are not protected by copyright and the US does not have a database right, many of the source countries of our contributors do have a database right. More than a few institutional contributors have pushed entire databases into Commons under the terms of licenses that are not CC0. While it may be legal for Wikidata or other external projects operating under US law to extract significant portions of these facts that originated with these databases and redistribute them under a CC0 license, doing so in other countries may be a violation of the database right of these institutional contributors. As a US entity it is likely legal for the WMF to push factual data from Commons into a database distributed under a CC0 license and Commons has in the past made exceptions to its default position of honoring the copyright law of both the source and the US. For example, Commons only looks to US law with regards to faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art (i.e. {{PD-Art}}. If Commons is going to adopt a similar position of not honoring the database rights of our contributors we should do explicitly with an update to Commons:Licensing. —RP88 (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We contribute media under Commons:Licensing policy which mentions honoring of the copyright law of both the US and the source country. But we contribute descriptions under CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (and Terms_of_Use) only. For example under terms of use copying descriptions distributed under GFDL only is explicitly not allowed. The CC-BY-SA-3.0 license or the terms of use do not mentions third party database rights, so I assume contributors wave those and other other unmentioned rights when they contribute to Commons. Although I often find copyright debates enlightening, often if you ask 10 Commoners you might get 11 answers on many legal maters, that is why I was interested in official WMF position regarding copyright license for data stored in Structured data. --Jarekt (talk) 20:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hearing WMF's position would indeed be interesting (particularly as version 4.0 of the CC licenses included updates specifically to correct problems identified in the CC 3.0 licenses with regards to database rights). I think it is a mistake to assume contributors who have uploaded an entire database have waived their database rights and other other unmentioned rights by virtue of their agreement to the Commons Terms of Use (Creative Commons believes that the "CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported" license specified by the TOU does not expressly license database rights). In the US the WMF would arguably have an implied license to use these rights, but this would likely not extend to reusers. The Foundation's proposal for new terms of use at meta:Terms_of_use/Creative Commons 4.0 does include a specific waiver of database rights. —RP88 (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

IRC office hour next week!

Which data/information goes where? Something to look at during the next IRC office hour

Hi everyone! I warmly welcome you to attend the next IRC office hour: next Tuesday 21 November at 18:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^webchat. Amanda, Ramsey and I will be there to talk about the work of the last months, and to explain what's coming. I'm also thinking of having a closer look at the last version of the project roadmap, and to look at the 'what data goes where?' graphic together. Any other topics that people are interested in? Bring your questions to the table next week. The chat log will be published afterwards for those who could not attend. All the best! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Input on Commons tools welcome!

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T173971

Hi everyone! I have created a general Google sheet with an overview of important tools (Commons, Wikidata, GLAM) that I could find so far. The list is a general inventory, made to be able to find out which tools need post-structured data support most urgently. Input on the sheet is very welcome. Everyone should be able to comment on it, and please ping me if you want full editing access.

Here it is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GVR0jghBWuAGqJaT7KVXigMYWWNzdnrnwI9nWqfJrCo/edit#gid=0

I would like to ask for feedback on the following things:

• Tool developers: are your tools represented correctly? Please edit if that is not the case. Pinging @Yarl and @Magnus already
• Not every tool is associated with a developer yet and additions are welcome, especially for the most crucial tools.
• Active tool users (1): Please check if your favorite tools are in this sheet and if not: leave a comment or add them directly.
• Active tool users (2): Indicate the importance of your favorite tools in the pink column 'Importance'. Feel free to add comments with extra input too!

Next steps will then be (among other things)

• Prioritize support for the most important tools
• Make sure there are Phab tasks for all needed updates
• See where extra help is needed, and investigate what kind of help that could be (focus on these tools in hackathons? other types of support?), so that I can start assisting there.

Thank you! SandraF (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Input welcome on use of {{Cite web}} and structured data on Commons

Hello all! On the general talk page of this project, there's a question about the possibility to convert {{Cite web}} templates to structured data, to which I responded to the best of my knowledge, but other perspectives are certainly welcome. SandraF (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)