I haven't had enough time to properly document this on wiki, but have internally advised some community members on specific batch uploads. A good example is the recent (January 2019) upload of digitized maps from the Instituto Geografico Nacional, by Wikimedia Spain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MTN25_printed

We got some basic numbers!

Please help by adding more statistics for these and for other Magnus tools in this ticket's comments.

Nice! Mix'n'match numbers are relatively 'low' (and I might have done a few of those in my volunteer capacity ;-) )

In T173346#4661116, @Jheald wrote:

(ii) the ability to offer IIIF access to a particular revision of an image -- because any subsequent cropping or rotation or rescaling by a Commons user, however well-intentioned, would totally throw out the pixel-referenced georeferencing data.

Thanks James. It is extremely helpful and useful for us to know that this request has come up. In order to be able to make the case for core IIIF support in the future, we need plenty of evidence that this is a real need. It's telling that even a major GLAM in a country with relatively good cultural funding, like the UK (I assume?) expresses this request, and I would be interested to know about concrete cases from GLAMs in less-resourced countries.

Measuring impact of tools may, besides tracking 'human' campaigns, be an interesting and valid use case for the Hashtags tool, so I'd be hesitant to drop QuickStatements edits (or any tool or bot edit) from the results by default.

In theory this should be measurable with the Hashtags tools, as both QuickStatements and Mix'n'match produce hashtags in edit summaries; but that is currently blocked by T207029: Consider addition of Wikidata tracking.

We do have a nice and active group of people who provide feedback. It can always grow, people are welcome to join anytime. But the baseline is there. Considering this task closed!

As I am working on a bit of on-wiki documentation anyway, I have taken the freedom to rearrange the page on Commons about IIIF a bit, to make it more digestable (I hope) to people new to IIIF and to non-Wikimedians.

In T173346#4497764, @Jheald wrote:

A heads-up that "Wikipedia and IIIF" is the proposed subject for the IIIF community call this week -- see https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/iiif-discuss/wy2uRl_ukJ0

Thanks for the heads-up, @Jheald - I can attend the meeting and have also alerted some colleagues to it!

In T199878#4433199, @Effeietsanders wrote:

There's definitely demand for this. Shall we source this together in a big WLM/WL table?

Adding a few people to this conversation - feel free to let me know who else I can involve here ;-)

There is now also a temporary mailing list for GLAM staff interested in joining this group. It will be used for occasional news, announcements, and requests for feedback. You can join here: https://groups.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/forum/#!forum/glam-structured-commons

Thanks for notifying me of this project! Looking forward to this upload :-)

The presentation was given! Slides are here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Structured_Data_on_Commons_-_EuropeanaTech_2018.pdf

A first community consultation on this topic has concluded, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/GLAM_metadata_and_ontologies_mapping.

Repeating the summary here as well. Skipping the hyperlinks ;-) - for those, see the on-wiki summary.

I updated the talk page of this community consultation with a summary and an overview of next steps:

Changing priority to Normal - it is on the radar, and I and @Sadads are currently investing time in actively putting this on the agenda.

Apart from a few individual follow ups, this task can be closed! Thanks to everyone who participated in the sessions and conversations :-)

Apart from a few individual follow ups, I think we can hereby close this task! It was great to see everyone and to have many conversations around tooling and data modelling!

The EuropeanaTech Conference has concluded.

I was alerted to the fact that Creative Commons has been working on a RDF representation of its licenses - CC REL, The Creative Commons Rights Expression Language. I think it can be very inspirational for our own modelling on Wikidata.

Session is done! See the Etherpad :-) Input and ideas remain very welcome.

The consultation is closed now, but comments are still very welcome. I'm providing a summary and suggestions for next steps around the end of May.

Here's an Etherpad with an outline and some links to things we can look at together. https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/GLAM-SDC-wmhack18

Sessions have taken place :-) Many thanks to all who participated!

Adding a few subscribers - feel free to unsubscribe again if you don't want to follow this.

A first (simplified) version of such a workflow diagram has been discussed during a session at Learning Days before the Wikimedia Conference 2018.

The workshop has taken place. It was a full house!

I checked with WMF Legal a few weeks ago - my understanding is that they are working on general statements for our projects, and a blog post on the topic, together with the Communications team at WMF; pinging @Slaporte.

Feedback request page is online here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/GLAM_metadata_and_ontologies_mapping

In T173971#4105611, @Keegan wrote:

IIRC, @SandraF_WMF was going to continue to own the tools spreadsheet, it's relevant to GLAMs in a big way. This task can be removed from CL workboards for now, I think.

There is now a basic international group of GLAM staff members who have agreed to give feedback to the project. I send them e-mails when a new relevant community consultation is launched.