[GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr

[Arne Wossink]

Hi all,

One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their
collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use
creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.

However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under
a PD license with basically the same information about the photos
(description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred
these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but
their description and other information is not as good as could have been
if all available templates etc. had been used.

This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about
the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first
place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or
that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.

Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?

Arne Wossink

Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland

*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday)*

Tel. [phone]
E-mail: ***@wikimedia.nl

*Post/bezoekadres:*
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht

[Estermann Beat]

Hi,

Do the already uploaded pictures have a unique id (or some metadata that could be used as such) that would allow for an easy matching between the images on Commons and the entries in the database?

Cheers,
Beat



From: GLAM [mailto:glam-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Arne Wossink
Sent: Montag, 11. Juni 2018 11:02
To: Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public] <***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr

Hi all,

One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.

However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under a PD license with basically the same information about the photos (description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but their description and other information is not as good as could have been if all available templates etc. had been used.

This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.

Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?

Arne Wossink

Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland

(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday, Thursday)

Tel. [phone]
E-mail: ***@wikimedia.nl<mailto:***@wikimedia.nl>

Post/bezoekadres:
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht

[Arne Wossink]

Yes. The catalogue ID is provided as part of the general description field.


Arne Wossink

Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland

*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday)*

Tel. [phone]
E-mail: ***@wikimedia.nl

*Post/bezoekadres:*
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht

Post by Estermann Beat
Hi,
Do the already uploaded pictures have a unique id (or some metadata that
could be used as such) that would allow for an easy matching between the
images on Commons and the entries in the database?
Cheers,
Beat
Wossink
*Sent:* Montag, 11. Juni 2018 11:02
*Subject:* [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Hi all,
One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their
collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use
creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under
a PD license with basically the same information about the photos
(description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred
these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but
their description and other information is not as good as could have been
if all available templates etc. had been used.
This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about
the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first
place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or
that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.
Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday)*
Tel. [phone]
*Post/bezoekadres:*
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam

[Fæ]

Improving image text pages with better metadata and templates falls under
good housekeeping. Approaching the uploader and seeing if the improvements
can be done collegiately and agreeing an approach would be the best way
forward.

If there are several hundred or thousands of files, it may be worth asking
for advice or volunteers to help with automation.

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bots/Work_requests

Fae

Post by Arne Wossink
Hi all,
One of our GLAMs was working on a small upload of PD photos from their
collection. They were planning to do the upload with Pattypan and use
creator, language templates etc. to enrich the metadata as much as possible.
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account under
a PD license with basically the same information about the photos
(description was limited anyway). Another user has recently transferred
these with Flickr2Commons. So these images are now already on Commons, but
their description and other information is not as good as could have been
if all available templates etc. had been used.
This is a first for me. I'm aware that nothing could have been done about
the Flickr to Commons transfer except not putting them there in the first
place, but clearly the current situation is not in our best interest or
that of the GLAM and is certainly not a best practice.
Any comments on this? What would be a good way to handle this situation?
Arne Wossink
Projectleider / Project Manager Wikimedia Nederland
*(Werkdagen: maandag, dinsdag, donderdag / Office hours: Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday)*
Tel. [phone]
*Post/bezoekadres:*
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam