[GLAM] GLAM Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3

[Olaf Janssen]

Hi Arne,

Good question!

It might help if you share the exact Commons-cat the image are in, that helps us better assess the situation. I imagine a number of potential helpouts:

1) I guess asking a Commons admin to delete the already uploaded files and reupload using Pattypan would be the easiest way forward.

2) Assuming all images are in 1 Commons-cat : Use custom replace in VisualFileChange.js? (perhaps with reg exps?)

3) In the GLAMwiki toolset I read " Re-upload media from URL - This checkbox allows you to re-upload media for an item that has already been uploaded to the wiki. If the item already exists because of one of your previous uploads, an additional media file will be added to the wiki. If someone else has already uploaded a new version of the media file, then your new upload will be ignored. If the media file does not yet exist in the wiki, it will be uploaded whether this checkbox is checked or not."

Perhaps this would allow for an upload with better metadata?

4) Assuming all images are in 1 Commons-cat: with some effort you could write a Python script that replaces all the existing 'poor/too short' metadata field values with the better (template based) values

Best,
Olaf

-----Original Message-----
From: GLAM [mailto:glam-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of glam-***@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: maandag 11 juni 2018 11:11
To: ***@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: GLAM Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3

Send GLAM mailing list submissions to
***@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
glam-***@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
glam-***@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GLAM digest..."


Today's Topics:

1. GLAM collection transferred from Flickr (Arne Wossink)
2. Re: GLAM collection transferred from Flickr (Estermann Beat)
3. Re: GLAM collection transferred from Flickr (Arne Wossink)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:01:43 +0200
From: Arne Wossink <***@wikimedia.nl>
To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]"
<***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Message-ID:
<CAKrE8mUspsW25_FVDCSPb94swg+***@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/attachments/20180611/8eeb1d9f/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:07:00 +0000
From: Estermann Beat <***@bfh.ch>
To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]"
<***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Message-ID: <***@bfh.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/attachments/20180611/29771c27/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:10:32 +0200
From: Arne Wossink <***@wikimedia.nl>
To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]"
<***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Message-ID:
<CAKrE8mU-Ypdt5_E7mXxGVgFD3tbWmGhp21jHZZjmmscY-***@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/attachments/20180611/a244d9a1/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
***@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam


------------------------------

End of GLAM Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3
***********************************

[Arne Wossink]

Hi Olaf,

It turns out that only 10 images have already been transferred from Flickr,
and the rest isn't (yet) on Commons. So I figured that we'll proceed with
the upload as planned, omit the 10 that are already on Commons, and then
edit their metadata manually (and let the original uploader know why we're
doing that).

This seems like the easiest solution - although a Python script like that
would surely be a useful thing to have, not just for this case... :)

Best,


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 Olaf Janssen
Hi Arne,
Good question!
It might help if you share the exact Commons-cat the image are in, that
helps us better assess the situation. I imagine a number of potential
1) I guess asking a Commons admin to delete the already uploaded files and
reupload using Pattypan would be the easiest way forward.
2) Assuming all images are in 1 Commons-cat : Use custom replace in
VisualFileChange.js? (perhaps with reg exps?)
3) In the GLAMwiki toolset I read " Re-upload media from URL - This
checkbox allows you to re-upload media for an item that has already been
uploaded to the wiki. If the item already exists because of one of your
previous uploads, an additional media file will be added to the wiki. If
someone else has already uploaded a new version of the media file, then
your new upload will be ignored. If the media file does not yet exist in
the wiki, it will be uploaded whether this checkbox is checked or not."
Perhaps this would allow for an upload with better metadata?
4) Assuming all images are in 1 Commons-cat: with some effort you could
write a Python script that replaces all the existing 'poor/too short'
metadata field values with the better (template based) values
Best,
Olaf
-----Original Message-----
Sent: maandag 11 juni 2018 11:11
Subject: GLAM Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3
Send GLAM mailing list submissions to
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
You can reach the person managing the list at
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of GLAM digest..."
1. GLAM collection transferred from Flickr (Arne Wossink)
2. Re: GLAM collection transferred from Flickr (Estermann Beat)
3. Re: GLAM collection transferred from Flickr (Arne Wossink)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:01:43 +0200
To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]"
Subject: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/attachments/
20180611/8eeb1d9f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:07:00 +0000
To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]"
Subject: Re: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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
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]
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/attachments/
20180611/29771c27/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:10:32 +0200
To: "Wikimedia & GLAM collaboration [Public]"
Subject: Re: [GLAM] GLAM collection transferred from Flickr
<CAKrE8mU-Ypdt5_E7mXxGVgFD3tbWmGhp21jHZZjmmscY
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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]
*Post/bezoekadres:*
Mariaplaats 3
3511 LH Utrecht

Post by Olaf Janssen
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

*Arne

Post by Olaf Janssen
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.

Post by Olaf Janssen
However, these photos were already available on their Flickr account

under

Post by Olaf Janssen
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

Post by Olaf Janssen
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/glam/attachments/
20180611/a244d9a1/attachment.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam
------------------------------
End of GLAM Digest, Vol 83, Issue 3
***********************************
_______________________________________________
GLAM mailing list
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glam