Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Smarthistory

Please check

Do please check whether the "External media" template works with this list, and especially if it is formatted properly, includes all the info we want, etc. As I understand it, the template is not used that often, but is perfectly acceptable in general, as used here.

A couple of suggestions for the project:

• We get a signup list for members, and perhaps a user box
• Have a priority list of what to do. Not that everybody has to follow this but, I'd suggest:
  • 1st inserting the external media template into articles on individual artworks, checking for "citations needed" in the articles (haven't seen any so far) and adding citations from the video where needed.
  • Writing new articles for artwork (including other sources of course) and then including the video link.
  • Including the external media on artists pages only in special cases.
  • Perhaps having a project template for use on the talk page
  • Asking Zucker to release his PHOTOS: https://secure.flickr.com/photos/profzucker/ (links to Flickr on the smARThistory video pages) CC-BY-SA, rather than CC-BY-NC. Perhaps Khan Academy requires these to be NC also, but it looks like a personal photostream on Flickr. If it is a lot of work to change all the licenses, he could propbably do it very simply for us by a single OTRS request.
  • I think there is a possibility to revise the external media template (though not by me) to be able to include a photo (e.g. one of Zucker's) to show in the article.

All comments and suggestions appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Actually there are relatively few objects that don't have articles - you'll see I have refined many links, and there may be more. Not sure what take up will be, but we can only have a go & see. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the external video box in articles is a good idea - hadn't thought of that! Some of the articles, where there's lots of external resources/videos about them probably don't need such a box but for the less well known thigs it's a great idea. Also, just wanting to check the capitalisation - I see that the "external video" boxes in some articles refer to "smARThistory" but I think it's officially just "Smarthistory". Like the idea of the photo release - since these are separate from the videos and "personal" they are probably taken during any video shooting. Oh, and we don't need to work only with the video pages, there's many essays there as well which could be mined for footnotes (though I can't seem to find the quick link to where all the essays are that are promoted on the frontpage). And, even within videos, I think we could also get a little bit more creative in where they can be linked - e.g. this video could potentially be linked to (and from) Damain Hirst, Art Appreciation, contemporary art and the article about the work itself - http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/hirsts-shark-interpreting-contemporary-art.html Finally, is there something that smarthistory can do to work with Wikiproject visual arts? Wittylama 06:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How can we at Smarthistory (Beth and Steven) help with Smallbones suggestions? We're happy to help in any way we can and we are also open to discussion about Steven Zucker's photos (those that are "documentary" and of 2d works of art) being of use - without too much work re: changing licensing on each photo in Flickr. We are also always creating new videos, which we can add to the list.Bethrharris (talk) 13:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've really just been playing, so far, with the formatting of the links. e.g. "smARThishistory" seems to have been a bad idea (but I'll go back and change it). Some might want more detail in the footnote, e.g. commentators, text author, time of video, maybe even location, but since that would take lots of time and the info is one click away I don't see much point. Do please comment on what you think should be in the link.

Is there an easy way to find which videos have been translated? Is it just the closed captions that are translated, or is the audio sometimes translated as well? GLAM is a very multilingual project and placement in the (280?) different language versions could be very helpful.

As far as my priorities - I think the one video/one artwork/one article combo is nice and direct, easy to decide on where to put the link, and very easy to justify to skeptics/regulators. As we get feedback and more volunteers other types of placement will develop.

Photos could be a very real help for specific articles. Usually we just have a big overview pic, so details, setting, studies and related pix would be very helpful. There's also something very symbolic about this - at a minimum Wikipedia editors can have something specific to point to and say "look what these nice folks have done for us." Changing all the photo licenses to CC-BY-SA would be the easiest for us, then we can go and pick and choose which we think are best. Or the photographer could go through all the photos and pick and choose what he thinks are best. OTRS is a permission system where you send in an e-mail outlining a specific permission. I'm not exactly sure, but we might be able to do something like "up to 300 photos from the Flickr photo series at ... "

More later. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to add the link to the Wikipedia GLAM-Smarthistory possible links spreadsheet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory 24.90.192.70 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And sadly there is no easy way to find the translated videos and more translations are happening every day. As far as citations - it should read Smarthistory at Khan Academy, and if you want to add the speakers they are almost always listed right below the video caption. In principle we share your goals regarding our images. We will be consulting a lawyer with expertise in image rights to see if it is possible to strip out the "NC" for the bulk of the images. 24.90.192.70 (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Bethrharris (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oddities and precedents

This project is long overdue and I am glad for this opportunity to integrate Khan Academy materials into Wikimedia projects. This project is doing some wonderful and strange things which I would like to point out here. I am not sure of the implications of these things; the project is extremely important for Wikipedia but I think some of these things ought to go to community discussion on best practices.

1. Multilingual video - I am concerned that when there are multilingual videos it will not be immediately obvious which languages are served and which are in queue to be created
2. Translation - this is another major translation project and Wikimedia translation infrastructure is getting bulky. I think that eventually participants in this project should express their needs so that the Wikimedia community can better work together to produce translations of this content.
3. "No-commercial" licensing - For translations, I presume that Wikipedians would want to make Wikimedia-project compatible video translations. If this ever happened I wonder how the project coordinators would feel, because this community always prefers free content to non-free content.
4. Prioritizing content linking - I do not have a good idea of the scope of this project but it seems large. I would be interested in setting up metrics for tracking workflow and impact.
5. Non-free content endorsement - I think this content is beyond repute and necessary for Wikipedia but the community should probably give feedback into this as it is a massive, potentially culture-changing project with an unsurprising but odd linking style.
6. naming Smarthistory in the link - per WP:EL it has historically been disallowed to put external links in the body of an article. When this is done, it has not been done that it advertises any particular organization. Right now, this project is set to put external links in the body of articles and advertise the "Smarthistory" name with attribution in the body. So far as I know, this is without precedent. I think this merits broader review. What would happen, for example, if someone removed this attribution? Would that constitute vandalism?

I could say other things. Wow. This is impressive and a lot to take in. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am also concerned that someone will notice the batch of new external video links and cry "SPAM!" if we don't announce our intentions for discussion by the community. Perhaps a comment about this project at the Village Pump is in order? (And I am not volunteering to do that myself. I know my limitations.)

As far as prioritizing, I see two options: (1) create the full set of WikiProject assessment templates so that we can assign priorities and track progress, or (2) let project members tackle articles that appeal to them in our usual haphazard way. I prefer the latter since tagging articles and assigning priorities is probably more work than adding the external video links! - PKM (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Placement of the new template

I suggest that the box is not position it so high, Im seeing it put in the body text of the article. I like the site myself, and been visiting it for a while now, but all of a sudden, the box, seemingly wiki endorsed, now appears splat bang in the middle of the description section, or even - under the infobox. Commons which is a sister project whatever you might think of them, is not usually allowed that prominence. I think in the refs or the next upper most section is probably the best section to place it. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree, though wider discussion would be welcome. Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Tks. To be clear, Im very happy to see this tie in, as I say Ive been visiting the website for a while now, and have thought about citing it more than once, but see it as more of a gateway as an educational resource, a fantastic one at that, and have been noticing its growing hits on utube, in case my cmt is seen as discoragment to the editors driving this; no its not that. Endorsing smart history is a very welcome move, Im just quibbling about where the box is placed is all. Ceoil (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the box is too intrusive, especially when it is placed high up on the page. I have been putting the link under "External links" where readers would expect to see it. Readers with a deeper interest in the art work they can follow it up from there. If in the future, another organisation makes its own analyses or descriptions available, their version could be added in the same place on the page. Articulate and reliable interpretations of the art works are a good thing and these are welcome - they add value to the article and the encyclopaedia. However, the box privileges the one interpretation and organisation. If eventually we have a range of different interpretations from different organisations or experts, we could collect them under a heading such as "Interpretive discussions" or something like that. That would be more difficult if this current box is all over the place. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe a collapsible box that could contain a number of links to different sites. The London National Gallery for example have a number of really good vids on specific paintings. Ceoil (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW you can include other video in the exact same template. Just include "|video2 =" "|video3 =", etc. I think it's quite important to place the template up high when the video is an overview of the topic of the article. For example, if the reader is looking for an overview, they can catch the video after reading the intro, but if it were down under external links, then they would only catch it after reading the whole article - pretty useless at that point! Also external links tends to get pruned rather regularly, with minimal thought, so these links would likely disappear every 6 months. I don't recommend this template for every video, but if it is an overview from a purely educational purely non-profit, it makes sense to me. BTW, this is not a new template, it's been around for years, with placement in the body of the text required according to the useage notes in the template. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

To let everybody know - I know about the issue of the placement of the external video link and will open an RfC (where?) after Jan. 1 when folks are all back from vacation. As far as including 2 videos, here is an example. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

{{external media | width = 210px | align = right | video1 =[http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/american-regionalism-grant-woods-american-gothic.html Smarthistory - Grant Wood's American Gothic]<ref name="smarth">{{cite web | title =Grant Wood's American Gothic | work = | publisher =Smarthistory at Khan Academy | date = | url =http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/american-regionalism-grant-woods-american-gothic.html | accessdate =December 18, 2012}}</ref> | video2 =[http://www.wapellocounty.org/americangothic/index.htm American Gothic House]<ref name="AG House">{{cite web | title =American Gothic House | work = | publisher = | date = | url =http://www.wapellocounty.org/americangothic/index.htm | accessdate =December 29, 2012}}</ref> }}

External videos
Smarthistory - Grant Wood's American Gothic
American Gothic House

Moved comment to new section 'Need for more feedback

New articles created

Please list new articles created as part of this project here.

• King Cophetua and the Beggar Maid (painting) - PKM (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• The Golden Stairs - PKM (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Hope (Burne-Jones) - PKM (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
• Erastus Salisbury Field - PKM (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How does the placement at François Boucher look?

As noted above there is some controversy about placement of the "External Videos" box. Please see how the placement at François Boucher looks. My main concerns are that:

• If somebody is looking for a quick video overview, it should be in a place where they can easily find it. Right near the top (following our pix of course) would be the best for this concern, but maybe putting it down by "See also" - right after the body of the text - is not so bad. Readers might miss the overviews the first few times they see one of these articles, but once they see one or two, they'll probably start looking for the videos. Having the xvideo box in the same place every time might be useful. Also, for non-"overview of the article" videos, as in the Boucher article, I'm uncomfortable putting these at the top, but I'm not uncomfortable putting them in the same place as others by See also, so they might be easier to find this way.
• Video is really under-used in Wikipedia. We are getting old-fashioned! We look like a paper encyclopedia! If we can't promote it to the top 10% of the article, I guess I'd be satisfied to have it promoted above everything except the main body.
• The External links section can be a real cesspool at times. Kudos to the folks who try to sort this all out, but I'm really uncomfortable putting anything valuable down there. 90% of our readers don't look down there, there's no special formatting for video, and half the links get deleted every few months (and not always very carefully).

The main concerns I hear are "this looks very surprising" so other editors are likely to delete it, and "What's to prevent other, not so valuable, videos to be placed the same way?" I'm not above doing things a bit differently and surprising a few people - that can result in progress. Let's wait for somebody outside the project to object so that we can find out what their objections are, and meet their objections as we go - rather than have something so completely bland that nobody can object to it. That said the objections above on this page are strong enough that we probably have to move the xvideo box down. I hope the "See also" section is far enough.

The second objection "What's to prevent other, not so valuable, videos to be placed the same way?" is a bit harder to answer. We almost need to come up with a new guideline to prevent this. But I'll suggest: let's include all purely non-profit, educational videos in the box, and let's make a point to exclude all ad-spam-evil-money-grubbing commercials from the box. There's some middle ground of course, where we might use our judgement.

All feedback appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the box is good where you have placed it near the references because it is, after all, a reference, and placing it with the other references is appropriate and practical. There it does not intrude in the main part of the text while still being easy to find and recognise for what it is. These are a special type of reference, and in response to the second objection, I expect that their quality is as easy to check as any other reference. However, I don't think they can be described as "quick video overview(s)". That phrase implies some sort of summary of the article, whereas these videos are appreciations of the works and theoretically there could be a number of different appreciations. (Probably some would be much better than others or there might be a set each with a different scope such as for example, an expert focusing entirely on historical context or disputed provenance or a conservation problem). That is another reason to have them near the references - so that readers do not think they are linked to an audiovisual version of the article itself. I like the fact that there is a heading "External videos". Would it be a good idea to say "External videos - appreciations of the work" (or something like that? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"See also" seems reasonable, although I don't really like "see also" sections in principle. If the video is actually used as a reference, and cited in the text (which I think is the least spammy approach), then I have been putting the box in the "references" area. See Erastus Salisbury Field for an example. - PKM (talk) 03:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Slightly diferent - can anybody fix the margins

External videos Smarthistory - Grant Wood's American Gothic American Gothic House

I'd like to use the format on the right. A picture just gets the idea of "video" across much better than text does. But I haven't been able to get the margins to line up (left is much bigger than right). Does anybody know how to fix this?

It's also been suggested that we modify the {{external media}} template directly to allow a display photo.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment, Smallbones raised this with me and I've adjusted {{external media}} to allow for a headerimage neatly. So this should be resolved. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic work by Thumperward. I adjusted the width to 225px (then back to 210 see below) to match the Commonscat box. I also noticed today that Google Art Project has audio on some of the works on their website. For some odd reason, they have different language versions only identified by Audio 1, Audio 2, etc. with the language order switching with different works. I'll go ahead and include several of these in articles, where appropriate. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

External media
Audio
Google Art Project (Audio 5)
Video
Giorgione's Three Philosophers, c. 1506, Smarthistory

{{external media | width = 210px | align = right | headerimage = [[File:Giorgione 033.jpg|210px]] | video1 = [http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/giorgiones-three-philosophers-c.-1506.html Giorgione's Three Philosophers, c. 1506], [[Smarthistory]]<ref name="smart1">{{cite web | title =Giorgione's Three Philosophers, c. 1506 | work = | publisher =[[Smarthistory]] at [[Khan Academy]] | date = | url =http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/giorgiones-three-philosophers-c.-1506.html | accessdate =January 30, 2013 }}</ref> | audio1 = [http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/kunsthistorisches-museum-vienna-museum-of-fine-arts/artwork/three-philosophers-giorgione/684879/details/1-audio/ Google Art Project (Audio 5)]<ref name="audioref">{{cite web|title=Three Philosophers (1508 - 1509)|url=http://www.googleartproject.com/collection/kunsthistorisches-museum-vienna-museum-of-fine-arts/artwork/three-philosophers-giorgione/684879/details/1-audio/|publisher=Google Art Project|accessdate=February 1, 2013}}</ref> }}

I'd rather the width were changed back: matching commonscats isn't really appropriate here because this template is quite specifically for non-sister projects (we've a general consensus that only sister sites should use that styling) and because {{external media}} can be used in the article body (where it is best aligned with other sidebars) as well as in the endnotes. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd also prefer the 210px width, but otherwise this is fantastic. Thanks, Chris! - PKM (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Back to 210px! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Template

I'm finding the size of the template a bit intrusive, and I notice its still being placed prominently in the article body, not near the footers. Also, and sorry, but adding a ref is kind of unnessary. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree: the template is too intrusive. It looks like an advert for these external videos. Even if the video is a "good thing", it is not appropriate and detracts from the article.

Another example: here. I think it works much better as an external link, like this.

I also do not appreciate having the references I used to write the article relabelled as "sources" just so an unnecessary footnote can be added to link to the video a second time. -- Theramin (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've just seen the discussion of a new template that adds links to library resources at Template talk:Library resources box. There is a reference to Wikipedia:External links#Templates for external links, which says:

All templates except those for WMF "sister" projects should produce a normal, single-line, text-based external link without any favicons, bold-faced text, custom bullets, or other unusual formatting.

That suggests that the {{external media}} template should not be being used in the manner it is here. The documentation for {{external media}} says it should only be used to add a link to online material that cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia and "if readers will expect this type of media in the article". Do readers of Pietà (Michelangelo) (to pick a random example) expect to find a link to an educational video? -- Theramin (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Need for more feedback

Today the first real negative feedback came in about the placement of the external media template. Apparently it was "too prominent" as an editor moved the template to "External links" and then deleted it all together. I'd like to give some examples of how I think this should be used and why. But first another editor, sent the following which I've moved here because it seems on topic. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

This discussion appears to have trickled to an end without a resolution about two months ago. I think broader discussion and a strong consensus is necessary; a lot of these I'm seeing cropping up on watched pages. Personally not crazy about them. One page I saw, and will try to find it, the article was so short the template took up much more space than necessary. Are the pages being sourced from these videos? Why not just add the cites to the references section, particularly for unsourced pages? Truthkeeper (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason to use the external media template is to include copyrighted material that we can't otherwise use, in the place that we'd otherwise use it. From above, it seems that most folks want to see it used fairly low down in the article. This is not a new template and it has been specifically mentioned at WP:EL since 2010. As long as we would put this material in the article if it were not limited by copyright, we are free to use the template as we see best. I personally would limit it further to linking only to non-profits, but that is not an issue here.

I've experimented a bit and see the following articles as having good uses of the template: (not all Smarthistory)

• Congressional Cemetery - note that the 1st linked video (3 hours!) is part of the history of the cemetery - which is why the template is right next to the mention of that history, fairly high up in the article.
• Eleanor Jones Harvey - links to 2 very different videos
• Gustave Caillebotte - to 2 of his painting - much better than the gallery above it.
• St. Francis in Ecstasy - to the painting home museum as well as Smarthistory

Please do let me know if you agree or disagree.

I'd like to see example also of where people don't think the template works well.

If there is much interest in this, should we call an RFC?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Userbox

The user box looks fine, except this is not a GLAM project at all really. Could that bit be removed? Philafrenzy (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was started at the request of the GLAM project, especially of User:Wittylama and I am a long-time (on again, off again) GLAMer. Perhaps we should do more to bring more GLAMers into it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

References

I note that some of the external video boxes are referenced. I don't think they should be as they are nothing more than external links, albeit very useful ones. If the external video was used as a source for the article then it can go in the references section with a link as normal in addition to the external video box, but I don't believe the box itself needs a reference. Any thoughts? Philafrenzy (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

In addition, there is an excessive use of header images where identical or similar images are already in the article. These can be removed to streamline the article layout. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the reference is a requirement, at least as far as including the insertion date, which I'd rather not include in the box itself. Still, it's a fairly technical rather than substantive requirement (these videos are stable), and I have no real objection to not including them on small articles where they may seem to overwhelm the rest of the content. On larger articles (more than 4 or 5 paragraphs), I see no harm in the reference (one extra footnote among many) and since the ref is named, it makes it easier for folks to take a point made in the video and add it as a reference in the article (without adding an extra footnote!)

Removing the header images is another matter. I think the image almost always adds something - generally more than just saying more clearly "here is a video" (which it does quite well). The header images I insert generally focus on a detail discussed in the video (I've experimented on this so I won't say ALL the header images I've inserted do this - but have no objection to removing them when they don't do this), so it tells the reader - "If you want to know more about this detail, watch the video." I don't see them as redundant, or as clogging up the layout more than any other image would do. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about the images, however, it does give the box a lot more prominence than is justified by its status as an external link. I like the Smarthistory videos but they are not our content and even if stable, we do not control them. They should have a prominence consistent with their status. (I have no objection to their being placed higher up in the article) If a detailed image is required then it should be in the article with explanatory text and a reference. Regarding references, I fail to see why an external link would ever be referenced. In fact, it is bad practice because it may wrongly suggest that the video was a source for the article. If the video was used as a source for the article, then it should go in the list of references as normal, and the link to the video can be added too. We don't need any new rules here, all this is existing best practice I think. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Smart History, Khan Academy, and NC content

This project was mentioned in a WikiProject Medicine discussion on NC content in Wikipedia. In that conversation, it was said that NC content was valuable to Wikipedia, and there was discussion about how to respond to it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)