[15:28:11] guillom: is the copyright sandbox still in the plans ? [15:39:44] hey, thedj [15:39:57] If I understand you correctly, yes [15:41:15] k. cause there is a lot of discussion about nudity images etc again, and i was wondering if such flexibility could be taken into account when creating the sandboxing system. [15:42:40] so that there can be tags for different reasons to be sandboxed basically. [15:45:34] hm [15:45:54] well guillom has all the different requirements in his docos [15:46:32] I'm not sure how nudity falls into this system or not. [15:47:01] Guillom wanted to make a super-flexible do-anything workflow system [15:47:35] which is IMO a good idea, but I think we want to take baby steps first. [15:48:03] so I'm suggesting a very simple, single-purpose review flow [15:48:11] is this answering your questions? [15:48:16] somewhat [15:48:18] will you be in Berlin? [15:48:21] no [15:48:28] should I be on some list to capture these discussions? [15:48:43] this was on the Commons village pump [15:49:14] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Explicit_images_tag [15:51:00] I'm having trouble understanding what the issue is and what is just wikipedantry [15:51:03] there hasn't been any discussion there about an implementation, but i was figuring that if you can move stuff OUT of a sandbox, you might be able to put them back in for reasons. [15:51:21] yes, I'm thinking of a publish/unpublish button. [15:51:43] right [15:51:44] Guillom and I think that "unpublishing" should be restricted to users of some rank [15:51:59] mdale has an interesting perspective, he thinks that any logged in user should be able to do that [15:52:09] because it scales better [15:52:24] I'd like to run that by people in Berlin [15:52:27] blegh, usergroups plenty already. one more won't matter :D [15:52:38] mmmmnah [15:52:54] if someone wants to appoint themselves the Commons Censorship Committee go for it [15:53:26] anyway is there actually a new issue here in all that discussion? I didn't see it in my scan [15:53:28] anyway, with a publish/unpublish function, combined with a "tag" feed, i guess something like this would be possible. [15:53:39] ok what do you mean by a "tag" feed? [15:53:53] like "such and such just acquired the tag 'nudity' " ? [15:54:00] a list of tags that are reasons for sandboxing material [15:54:20] what does it mean to tag something on Commons? Do you mean a category? [15:54:30] thta is the problem, they have no idea [15:54:33] :D [15:54:37] well [15:55:30] coming from the perspective of someone who worked at Flickr, categories seem a bit heavyweight. Hard to decide if they are merely "tags" or if they represent ontology. [15:55:41] but, they work, more or less [15:55:53] for both purposes [15:56:10] In principle, you could have a supercategory "tag" if there is some actual difference. [15:56:27] e.g. Category:Tag containing Category:Nudity [15:57:17] what would unpublishing add to the discussion btw? [15:57:22] what's wrong with speedy delete? [15:57:24] well a dropdown list during publish unpublish will do the trick as well i think. as long as you can reuse that tag beyond being a simple "text comment". [15:57:35] ok, I'll consider that [15:57:36] thanks [15:57:50] otoh it is better not to increase the number of entities in the system [15:57:56] Commoners understand categories [15:58:39] well the idea is to let people one day choose what images they want to see in wikipedia. so then that information would be required in the database. [15:58:40] categories sound much better than some general "explicit" tag (and hey, there are categories already in use) [16:02:06] anyway, just something to consider in the discussion I think. [16:06:01] Hello, where is documentation of usability project? I am interested in a toolbar api. [16:16:21] Beau_: hi, all the toolbar people are out of the office at the moment [16:16:38] Beau_: http://usability.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Usability_Initiative is where it starts, but I don't know if they have a page yet for some sort of toolbar API. [16:17:42] Oh, thanks. I'll wait :) [16:19:49] most of us are going to the Wikimedia Dev Conference in Berlin this week and/or the Apache con this week. [16:19:59] so, if people aren't answering questions quickly, please be patient. [19:45:50] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#I_like_Vector_skin [19:46:09] "And as I want that to be public, I just created this really unnecessary user box that you can see there on the right of this section." [20:00:32] thedj: it is great to hear the voice of Vector supporters! [20:06:23] nkomura as to userboxes ... have you ever looked at the Babel extension ... it allows for userboxes [20:07:01] more importantly it allows for the import of texts for language ability [20:07:17] this is particularly useful on the smaller projects [20:08:10] we could even include the [20:08:19] "I like vector [20:27:25] http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2010/04/i-like-new-mediawiki-vector-skin.html [20:27:35] and I do [21:19:36] GerardM-: btw. en wikinews was the first to default to vector I think. they requested it themselves quite a while ago. Commons is the first to be "forced" to change. [22:06:51] thedj I know [22:07:24] I have to use less then 8 paragraphs in a blog post and it is "too much information" [22:07:59] Pictures are powerful ... short sentences too.. I am not great at those [22:08:13] but I am learning [23:00:06] thedj: Why do you put "forced" in quotes? [23:13:47] *guillom waves [23:31:00] Marybelle: because that is how some people see it, while that isn't actually the case of course. they just didn't ask for it themselves. [23:31:14] thedj: It was forced. [23:35:09] they could have refused, but no attempt at refusal was made. [23:36:11] Roan had said that he seriously doubted that a refusal would not have been taken into account. And I have personally informed the community of this, because I thought it was important for them to know.