Wikidata:Property proposal/contributed to Wikimedia Commons by
contributed to Wikimedia Commons by
editOriginally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons
| Data type | Item |
|---|---|
| Domain | files on Commons |
| Allowed values | items which are instances of organization (Q43229) or its subclasses, or possibly sometimes human (Q5) |
| Example 1 | File:Benoit Lorenzelli, internuntius Apostolique, gravure J. Walter (coll. Catharijne Convent).jpg → Museum Catharijneconvent (Q1954426) |
| Example 2 | File:Józef Piłsudski - Sprawozdanie z konferencji CKR - 701-001-162-001.pdf → Józef Piłsudski Institute of America (Q6320631) |
| Example 3 | File:Archives of American Art - A life class for adults at the Brooklyn Museum, under the auspice of the New York City WPA Art Project - 11039.jpg → Archives of American Art (Q2860568) |
| Number of IDs in source | potentially millions of Commons images |
| Expected completeness | always incomplete (Q21873886) |
| Robot and gadget jobs | could be done by bot for existing uses of Commons partnership templates |
Motivation
editThis would be a property used for SDC for recording the institution contributing media to Wikimedia Commons. The idea would be to be able to replicate what is currently done in Commons with hundreds of different categories as a SDC statement instead. This is not just about who uploaded a file—it could be uploaded by a Wikimedian, bot, or individual staff person—but it would be used to add the organization which contributed them via a Commons content partnership.
This is also different from a collection (P195) statement because: (1) a file could be from an institution's collections, but not contributed by it (e.g., it's publicly available on the web and uploaded by a Wikimedian from their catalog), (2) a file not part of a cultural "collection" could still contributed by an organization (e.g., Commons:Fisfisa Media project), (3) a file could be contributed by a third-party aggregator, which would be different from the P195 value, and (4) this would apply to the media file, rather than underlying work, and should never be used on Wikidata itself.
Using this property, we can track uploads from a content partner. We would also be able to use SDC statements to populate the partnership banner template (e.g. Template:Open Beelden). Dominic (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Discussion
edit
Support - I assume that we will only allow limited number of item ID (one for each official partnership, or upload by the institution). So we should apply "one of" constraint. --Jarekt (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)- Support - This will be highly useful on Commons. It will make it a lot easier to get an overview of what kinds of organizations (and where they come from) that get their images uploaded. Ainali (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Comment As labeled, this *will* be used by individual editors - which could well be a good thing, but isn't what you're intending. Maybe you want something more like "shared under a Wikimedia partnership project by". Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm open to improvements on the label. It's phrased right now the way most of the categories on Commons work, but I agree it could be misconstrued. I wouldn't mind your suggestion, I just was trying to keep it a little shorter. One thing worth pointing out is that since data type is item, it won't be so simple for it to be used by editors to track personal uploads, since they can't add a username as a value without making a Wikidata item for it. We should also see about enforcing this with constraints (value type, or something?). Dominic (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- Share under Wikimedia partnership is to specific. Not all the contributions are done with any partnership. --Juandev (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'm open to improvements on the label. It's phrased right now the way most of the categories on Commons work, but I agree it could be misconstrued. I wouldn't mind your suggestion, I just was trying to keep it a little shorter. One thing worth pointing out is that since data type is item, it won't be so simple for it to be used by editors to track personal uploads, since they can't add a username as a value without making a Wikidata item for it. We should also see about enforcing this with constraints (value type, or something?). Dominic (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Dominic: how to do deal with partnerships and projects hasn't really been picked up yet in the modeling. This property you propose seems to address cases listed at Commons:Partnerships, but how about partnerships like Wiki Loves Monuments and supported by a chapter? What file should be tagged by this new property? Your first example is just a user upload, how about files like File:Verdwenen cokesfabriek Carcoke te Zeebrugge Goederentreintje - 370124 - onroerenderfgoed.jpg. Should these be tagged with this new property too? And why not just use donated by (P1028) with a qualifier to indicate that it applies to the digital file? Multichill (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: I think the upload of materials doesn't quite fit the literal definition of donation (Q1124860) used by that property, which implies some kind of gift of value. Personally, I think we should have this property with scope narrowly defined as a for true partnerships (that's already millions of files, so not narrow in scale) with potentially a different property or two for things like campaigns or chapter support (if that doesn't already fit sponsor (P859)). Dominic (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was also wondering about scoping, and I'd be in favor of very tight scoping indeed: only apply the property to uploads done by, or in close collaboration with, an institution. In addition to the cases already described above, we also have cases of quite massive uploads of GLAM files that have not been done or even endorsed by the institution itself and in that case I would not use this property. As an example, compare this file from Nationaal Archief (NL) uploaded by a Wikimedian, organically and without an ask from the institution, vs this file uploaded by a staff member at Nationaal Archief a few years earlier. In that context, I agree with Mike that the name of the property may be confusing. I can also very much imagine that, with the name contributed to Commons by many uninformed Wikimedians will add the uploader's item even if the uploader was not (connected to) a GLAM. A lengthier name is fine if it helps folks to understand the purpose of the property. Spinster 💬 17:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- What about "contributing GLAM"? "contributing institution" might also work if you want to avoid acronyms. Both of those make it pretty clear that your day-to-day Commons photographer should be using a different property. Vahurzpu (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am fine with "contributing institution". Or "contributing organization", which may be more broad. Is it clear that this refers to Commons, though, or do we need to spell it out (e.g. "organization contributing this file to Commons")? Dominic (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- What about "contributing GLAM"? "contributing institution" might also work if you want to avoid acronyms. Both of those make it pretty clear that your day-to-day Commons photographer should be using a different property. Vahurzpu (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- I was also wondering about scoping, and I'd be in favor of very tight scoping indeed: only apply the property to uploads done by, or in close collaboration with, an institution. In addition to the cases already described above, we also have cases of quite massive uploads of GLAM files that have not been done or even endorsed by the institution itself and in that case I would not use this property. As an example, compare this file from Nationaal Archief (NL) uploaded by a Wikimedian, organically and without an ask from the institution, vs this file uploaded by a staff member at Nationaal Archief a few years earlier. In that context, I agree with Mike that the name of the property may be confusing. I can also very much imagine that, with the name contributed to Commons by many uninformed Wikimedians will add the uploader's item even if the uploader was not (connected to) a GLAM. A lengthier name is fine if it helps folks to understand the purpose of the property. Spinster 💬 17:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Multichill: I think the upload of materials doesn't quite fit the literal definition of donation (Q1124860) used by that property, which implies some kind of gift of value. Personally, I think we should have this property with scope narrowly defined as a for true partnerships (that's already millions of files, so not narrow in scale) with potentially a different property or two for things like campaigns or chapter support (if that doesn't already fit sponsor (P859)). Dominic (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
- What about uploads of PD material from, shall we say, unwilling or unaware partners? The famous National Portrait Gallery set, for instance. It might also be sensible to allow this to be aplied to individual projects ("British Library British wildlife edit-a-thon 2016", for example; or "Wiki Loves Monuments 2019"). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- In my opinion, if a file was specifically contributed by a partner, then that is a meaningful data point to track separately from the collection (P195) statement, since we already try to track that. If the file was uploaded without their participation, then it seems like P195 is sufficient, is it not? I agree with you about tracking campaigns in a similar way, but I think that would be a different property, especially as the expected values would be items for the campaigns rather than for the organizations doing the contributing. Dominic (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think we should start focus on en:Public Identifiers and use DOI (P356) / Handle ID (P1184) to not just describe uploading institutions but also track other places using the same object to have a trackable lifecycle of objects. This is needed for dataround trips of metadata etc... small test how messy it is today with bad metadata and the same object copied to more places and no one knows if it is the same object or not see link T253201#6387109 Question B - Salgo60 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Please take this to the project chat instead since it questions everything Wikidata stands for and has nothing to do with this property proposal. Ainali (talk) 08:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Public identifiers for an organization belong the Wikidata item about the organization. If that's filled this property would allow to access those identitifers. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
